Contradictory Arguments From the Pro-Gay Marriage Crowd

From Patrick McIlheran, some observations about the fundamental incoherence (is “dishonesty” too strong a word?) of the pro-gay marriage crowd.

What is complicated is the way those favoring gay marriage must reconcile two arguments they’re making about the amendment’s core, the woman-and-man thing.

. . . their chief argument is that the amendment is bad because we’ve already banned gay marriage, so you needn’t worry about there ever being two-husband families. And it’s also bad because it bans gay marriage, denying civil rights.

That is, the amendment will stop gay marriage, which isn’t going to happen anyhow so don’t bother passing the amendment to stop it because it should be allowed.

The amendment’s foes are banking that people who want things to stay as they are can be persuaded to stand pat.

Only they’d be standing on a conveyor belt. Saying the amendment takes away a right that everybody acknowledges does not yet exist implies the right is nonetheless expected.

And so it is: Gay-marriage advocates have been tirelessly arguing in courts to have marriage’s definition changed to include them. As they assure voters that statutes have settled the matter, they ask courts to overturn those statutes, imposing a social revolution the people never would have voted for.

The truth is that the effect of the amendment will be less legal than political.

Passing it will be a way of saying to activist liberal judges (including judges out of state) “don‘t legalize gay marriage by judicial fiat.”

Failure to pass the amendment will be interpreted by activist liberal judges everywhere to mean “opposition to gay marriage is softening. Feel free to go ahead and legislate it.”