The extreme right is employing a number of faulty arguments in their fight against common sense civil rights.
There are those who argue that San Francisco's mayor, Gavin Newsom, has ignored the rule of law, setting the stage for rogue public officials across the country to plunge America into a state of anarchy. (California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, used the word "anarchy" when describing the state of affairs in San Francisco.)
What is next, these hysterical thinkers ask? Will the anti-choice mayor of Fresno shut off access to family planning clinics? Will Hallmark launch a line of congratulatory cards for men marrying their goats and brothers marrying their sisters? Will all of civilization as we know it crumble?
Suggesting the Newsom's actions are anarchistic is sloppy thinking. Mayor Newsom argues that the California constitution commands him to offer equal protection under the law for all of its citizens. Some people disagree, and are taking the matter into the courts. So far, two judges have denied an injunction against the same sex marriages in San Francisco. These marriages are not causing irreparable harm to anyone, they've said thus far. Moreover, these judges understand that there is a legal process underway that will address these concerns.
Here we have an elected official, supported by scores of other elected officials in San Francisco and California, who recognize the spirit of the law as proscribed in the California constitution. Moreover, they are pursuing their case in the courts. This is hardly anarchy, a system that is defined as the absence of government.
It remains to be seen what the courts will decide, but Newsom's position is in stark contrast with that of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who refused to remove his monument of the Ten Commandments from the court house, even AFTER all the relevant courts ruled that he was in violation of the law. Moore's actions do qualify as lawless.
Newsom is working to uphold the constitution. If the courts find that his actions have no basis in law, then the marriages will stop. Moore flouted the law. Those who stand opposed to anarchy would serve their cause well to recognize this distinction.
Tammy Bruce's clumsy comparison of Newsom's actions to a hypothetical rogue mayor of Fresno is woefully inadequate.
Those who arguing that legalizing gay marriage will lead to bestiality, incest, and more, are employing classic red herring tactics. They can't win the argument that gays and lesbians should be denied equal protection under the law. Thus, they confuse the issue by suggesting that the real gay agenda goes beyond gaining the right to equal protection for their relationships under the law, and actually includes a call for all sorts of unsavory behavior. If they say it enough then, right or wrong, it will enter the public discourse.
While I talk about the right to marry my partner, they talk about man-on-goat sex. On the face of it, their arguments are free of intellectual heft. Moreover, it calls into question the inner workings of their minds.
The extreme right speaks of tradition. Gay marriage, they often say, will lead to end of civilization, as we know it. That is the point!
In the name of tradition the extreme right has argued for the preservation of slavery. In the name of tradition the extreme right has argued for the continued subjugation of women. In the name of tradition the extreme right has argued for archaic environmental laws, regressive tax structures, racist voting laws, and a Christian-based America. And in the name of tradition the extreme right argues against equal protection for gay Americans.
I understand tradition and it is my most sincere hope that gay marriage (along with other progressive initiatives) will undermine it, as defined by the extreme right, to its very core.
I will no longer bite my tongue when someone refers to the bible as a historical document. There is overwhelming evidence that proves it is anything but a historical document.
The bible isn't history. It's Christian mythology. I have no doubt that one day the Christian bible will be looked upon in the way as Greek or Roman mythology. Jesus will take his rightful place among the ranks of Zeus, Apollo, and Poseidon.
The bible, both old and new testament, is a horribly oppressive document that calls for slavery, murder, and tyranny. There are parts of it that call for a more peaceful approach to life, but the extreme right picks and chooses among the verses with a self-serving recklessness. The extreme right claims that America is a Christian society. To the extent that they are correct, I will stand against them. I will fight against public policy that is based on this cruel mythology.
Will gay marriage undermine tradition? I can only hope.
Tammy Bruce suggests that gays look to the government for love and approval. She cites Andrew Sullivan as an example of just such a gay. The salient point here is that Tammy Bruce is a sloppy thinker. It would be easy for anyone, on the left or the right, to make a point, cite someone (say, Sullivan) as an example, and then apply it to an entire group of people. Bruce argued that there is no "Vulcan mind-meld" among gays. Yet, to make her ill-conceived point, she suggests that most gays do think alike on that point.
Perhaps gay marriage represents government love for Bruce. But for most gay people marriage represents thousands of rights and obligations granted by the government concerning taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, and so on.
If the word "marriage" is the issue – and perhaps it is – than the government should get out of the business of granting marriage licenses to anyone, instead granting full benefits to all couples, straight and gay, under whatever name it sees fit.
But as long as the government grants marriage licenses, it must grant them equally to all.
Lastly, Bruce cavalierly dismisses gays and lesbians who condemn gay marriage opponents by referring to them as "Gay Gestapo" and "brown shirts." She is comparing those who demand equal protection under the law to genocidal components of Germany's Nazi party. Even if she thinks the arguments put forth by gay marriage proponents (Can one be too heavy handed in calling for the end of oppression?), to compare them to murderous Nazis is repugnant.
Bruce, many Republicans, and the extreme right are using desperate hyperbole (e.g. bestiality, incest, Gay Gestapo, brown shirts, etc.) in an all-out effort to stop this nascent chapter in the ongoing civil rights movement.
This is one battle I do not wish to watch on the sidelines. If we stand up to them now, we can win this fight for basic civil rights, and hopefully quash their "culture war." I'd hate to wait-and-see, risking a loss, only to wish I had done something sooner.