The Return of DO Fiskings

Like I said, the Daily Orange is once again being distributed around campus, and they already have a letter to the editor that I can fisk. I will warn you, as I do when dealing with sensitive topics, that it's about the Massachusetts gay marriage ruling. And that's all I'll say. Let's begin:

Letter: Mass. ruling supports constitution
Should same-sex partners be allowed to marry? A question politicians have side-stepped for two decades. But on Nov. 18, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts finally addressed the sensitive issue and ruled the banning on same-sex marriages unconstitutional.

For the record, where in the Constitution is there a right to any kind of marriage at all, let alone gay marriage? I must've slept through that part of civics class.

The day was momentous for the civil rights of Americans around the country.

All 2% of 'em.

The Massachusetts government truly maintained the ideals of our founding fathers: to give every citizen the equal access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Several logical fallacies here. #1: The founding fathers PROBABLY didn't approve of gay marriage. That's just my guess. #2: The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is limited, or else we would have no laws. You could complain that speeding or shoplifting laws are unconstitutional with that logic, provided you happen to be a speeder or shoplifter and have no intention of giving it up.

Then we were reminded once more of the hate and fear that existed in so many of us.

Here we go AGAIN with the frickin' elitism.

"Oh, nobody has a logical reason for disagreeing with gay marriage. If they were logical people, they would agree with ME. Therefore, they must be mindless bigots!"

The Coalition for Marriage staged a protest of the court's ruling.

Which is, of course, a Constitutional right, in case you forgot. In fact, it's actually IN the Constitution, unlike gay marriage. Interesting, isn't it? No legislation of morality here.

They called for democracy. They said it was unconstitutional that the court had made the decision, going against the opinions and moral values of the "majority" of the state's citizens.

Why the quotation marks around "majority?" Because obviously, people that don't agree with their values aren't really citizens. To quote some British guy who was in the news recently...

"The people have spoken, the bastards."

There was no room for homosexuality in their judgmental characterization of the ultimate and sacred vows of love and commitment.

But you have room in your open-minded, tolerant ideology for their views, right? Oh wait, no you don't. I must say it yet again...

HOORAY FOR CONSISTENCY!!!

The debate will certainly continue, but it is impossible to validly claim that homosexual couples do not deserve the very same rights of heterosexual couples;

FYI, they already have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Two straight men or women can't marry each other, either. How hard is that to understand? And for the record, marriage is a privilege, not a right.

...that because of ignorant fear of the unknown, they should not be able to legally express their love and commitment to one another.

They already can "legally express their love and commitment to one another." If marriage is nothing but an expression of commitment, why do they need the state to legitimize it? They want special privileges that nobody...I repeat, NOBODY has right now.

Also, I still think it's interesting how disagreeing with gay marriage is attributed to "ignorant fear of the unknown," even though it can be based in logic and strong values. What happened to open-mindedness?

I guess their minds are only open to one viewpoint.

Politicians can continue to dance around the issue...

Or they can resort to appeasement like Dean.

...narrow-minded groups can continue to protest...

But if you protest those groups, as you're doing now, it doesn't make you narrow-minded, right? I thought so.

...but the decision has been made. The ban on same-sex marriages was lifted and the pillars of our constitution and our country, were upheld, defended and protected.

The country was not founded on gay marriage, the Constitution says nothing about ANY kind of marriage, and you can't defend a right that didn't exist until now.

I'm getting tired of having to see stuff like this. Especially the alternating moral attitudes. Apparently, if you think gay marriage is wrong, you're not allowed to "force your morality" on people, but if you think it's okay, there's nothing wrong with forcing your morality on those who think it's wrong, despite the fact that a majority of Americans disagree with full-fledged gay marriage.

At the same time, anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is called an ignorant, narrow-minded bigot, while people who agree with it are open-minded and progressive.

This is a batte of words. We need to realize that both points of view can be argued for with logic. You don't win support for traditional values by calling supporters of gay marriage "fags" and "queers," and you don't win support for gay marriage by calling your opponent a hateful bigot or attributing their beliefs to irrational fear.

Logic, people. It's the basis for all knowledge. Stop fighting with hyperbole.

Also, in case you missed it, I'll point out one more time that...

#1: All Americans have the right to marry. It's just a matter of who you can be married to. If we remove all limits, we'll have people marrying toasters just because they can.

#2: There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage. Nothing. If the government stopped recognizing all marriages (which, I believe, is a libertarian talking point), that would be within the limits of the Constitution. I wouldn't like it, but they'd be allowed to do it.

Stop whining.

Posted by CD on January 13, 2004 04:10 PM
Category: