Good As You

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

11/29/2006

In an attempt to explain why a Maryland judge was wrong to rule the state's one man/one woman marriage law unconstitutional, Focus on the Family's CitizenLink quotes a Baltimore attorney by the name of Matt Paavola (pic.) as saying:

The law doesn't violate equal-rights protections because it burdens both genders equally, he said.

"A man can't marry a man," said Paavola, "and a woman can't marry a woman."

So basically, following Mr. Paavola's argument (which is basically the same as the state's), equal-rights protections begin and end at gender. He's saying that since NO man or woman can marry each other, then everyone is discriminated against equally. Which might be kind of sort of logical if everyone in the world were born in the mold of a white heterosexual man or woman. But they are not. Equal rights protections, by their very nature, are designed to protect the rights of EVERYONE equally!

To see the flaws in Mr. Paavola's argument, one only needs to harken back to the fight for interracial marriage. What if it had been determined that marriages between folks of different races should have been banned because "A man can't marry someone of another race and a woman can't marry someone of another race?" It would still be the folks who WANT to marry someone of another race that are being discriminated against! You can't negate that something is discrimination by pointing out one particular way in which it does not discriminate! No, heterosexual people of either gender who were in love with someone of their own race were never affected by interracial marriage bans. However, the subdivisions of each gender who were in love with someone of the other race WERE GREATLY AFFECTED! The same goes with the gay marriage debate, with those men and women who are in love with someone of their own gender being the subset unequally burdened!

It's actually mind blowing that such a narrow argument is even still used to justify gay marriage bans! At least when they frame it in terms of child protection or a state interest in promoting reproduction, they are making an effort at crafting a logical reason for their inequality-seeking efforts. But by just saying that ALL people are banned from gay marriage, so tough shit, those of who are gay, they are boldly and unapologetically adopting the heterosexist position that gay couples are just undeserving of the same recognition! It's so patently short-sighted, and so deeply offensive!

But in a way, we're actually encouraged by the idea that this is the leg gay marriage opponents are now choosing to stand on. For if this is the best they can offer, it is clearly only a matter of time before we're walking down a meticulously decorated aisle. And don't worry, men and women in our family -- we'll burden you both equally with the financial responsibility of buying us a pricey gift!

Same-Sex Unions Pending in New Jersey, Maryland [CitizenLink]

Technorati Tags: gay marriage, Maryland, Matt Paavola

*Why are my comments not appearing? See the G-A-Y Comments Policy