Calling A Spade A Spade

I was listening to the podcast of NPR’s Day to Day from last Friday, just after the gay marriage ban passed.  They brought on several people to talk about the decision, but the most interesting for me was Maggie Gallagher, President of National Organization for Marriage.  This is one of the main groups responsible for the petition to amend the California constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual institution, and there was so much cognitive dissonance flying around the airwaves that I was astonished her head didn’t explode because of all the mental hoops she had to jump through to justify her position.

You could tell that she knew she was on shaky moral ground from the beginning of the interview:

“This is a court that ruled… that orientation is going to be treated like race under California law. It really means that our government is now in the business in California of saying that people like me who think marriage is the union of husband and wife are exactly like bigots who opposed interracial marriage.”

The thing is, Maggie, that people like you are exactly like racist bigots earlier in the century who opposed interracial marriage.  Let’s go through a short list of the reasons:

1. For starters, I have yet to hear a pro-family group come up with a justification for banning gay marriage that didn’t involve their slightly fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.  We live in a secular society with a secular government and a secular constitution, so attempting to argue and legislate from a position is not only irrelevant, it’s also illegal.
2. Opponents of interracial marriage made sure that there were unjust laws on the books that made the practice illegal, and when someone protested they pointed to those laws and said it was the will of the people.
3. Proponents of slavery and later of Jim Crow laws certainly had a Biblical justification for their bigotry ready to trot out whenever someone protested, but that didn’t make them right.
4. Opponents of gay marriage in California point to civil unions as a way for homosexual couples to be “separate but equal” under the law.  Can you think of another example of a minority group that was oppressed under the flimsy legal justification of “separate but equal”?

So I’m sorry, Maggie, but groups who oppose gay marriage today are exactly like groups who opposed interracial marriage.  My fervent hope is that history remembers you and your colleagues as the bigots that you are after the dust has cleared and the legality of gay marriage has been established once and for all.

“That means people in these faith traditions are going to be treated like racists in the public square if we don’t overturn this decision.”

Sometimes, Maggie, you have to call a spade a spade.  Anyone who treats you or your friends in Christ like bigots in the public square would be perfectly justified in doing so, because that’s what you are.  You’re trying to keep basic human rights that don’t harm anyone from a minority group because your invisible friend in the sky wrote down a few lines six thousand years ago that vaguely condemn one man lying with another man if you interpret it through the proper fundamentalist theology.  Your argument has no basis in modern morality.  The best you can come up with is that it’s the will of the people, but one of the great things about this country is that the will of the people can be overturned when the will of the people is wrong and violates the law.  The constitution is the highest law in America, not God.

“The next step is to raise $10 million to wage a media war.”

This is where conscientious people from all walks of life need to step in and step up.  You can see from the interview above that even when they come close to the truth, these fundamentalist nutjobs are still so set in their ways that they’re going to fight for a constitutional amendment tooth and nail.  We need to fight against them and make sure that this amendment doesn’t pass.  Of course all is not lost if it does pass, that just means that the decision will likely go to the Supreme Court to see if a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, but we have the opportunity to defeat this now and protect basic human rights for everyone, not just heterosexuals.

I’d like to leave everyone with one last thought from the duplicitous Maggie Gallagher:

“My concern is to protect marriage and religious liberty in the state of California and the rest of the United States.”

Sorry, Maggie, but heterosexuals have already destroyed the institution of marriage far more thoroughly than gays could ever hope to.  Heterosexuals have waged a vicious scorched earth campaign against marriage that has stretched across divorce courts, Jerry Springer, and reality shows like “Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire.”  You can’t fight for the integrity of marriage, because as it stands today heterosexuals have made sure that there is almost no integrity left in the institution.

And let’s remember that this is a society where we are guaranteed freedom from religious oppression.  The Establishment Clause was put in to prevent exactly the sort of thing that you are trying to do right now.  Your religious liberty does not extend so far that it should prevent the basic civil liberties of others.  This is a secular society, not a theocracy, and if your religious beliefs are so outdated as to become immoral then it’s probably time to examine them and make some changes.

Technorati Tags: Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage, NPR, Day to Day, marriage debate, fundamentalist, christianity, religious bigots, bigotry, gay marriage, California gay marriage