A Stitch in Haste

A quick and dirty way to try to disarm a debate opponent is to turn his criticism of your position back on himself. If he calls you a racist, then find a way to label him a racist, etc.

Such is the approach of Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby (also by way of Town Hall) in his plea not to be labeled a bigot for his opposition to same-sex marriage:

Express the conviction that marriage should mean what it has always meant -- the union of male and female -- and you are likely to be told that you are peddling hate. Of all the motifs that get played and replayed in the marriage debate, this one is the worst. For two reasons: First, because it is untrue. Marriage was not created to hurt homosexuals or enshrine bigotry in law. It did not become a universal human institution as an expression of animus.

Classic bait-and-switch. Jacoby is confusing (deliberately in my view), the "institution of marriage" with opposition to same-sex marriage.

Marriage is a policy-neutral concept and of course cannot by itself be "bigoted." But arbitrarily denying competent, consenting adults access to that concept is not policy-neutral and can most certainly hurt homosexuals and enshrine bigotry.

(Oh, and as for "marriage should mean what it has always meant," Jacoby, much like the bigots he is so desperate not to be counted among, is playing fast and loose with history -- for thousands of years marriage "always meant" that a husband owned his wife as property, and until very, very recently had an unconditional legal right to rape her at will. So much for "marriage should mean what it has always meant.")

Of course "marriage was not created to hurt homosexuals" -- if it did then we would want no part of it! It is the opposition to same-sex marriage that "enshrines bigotry in law." And, given that every supposed "justification" for proscribing same-sex marriage has been debunked ten thousand times over (including of course on this blog ad nauseum), the simple, blatantly irrefutable truth at this point is that only one intellectually honest reason exists for opposing same-sex marriage: naked bigotry. And those who advocate bigotry are bigots -- deal with it.

The second reason that the "only-a-hater-could-oppose-gay-marriage" meme is so objectionable is its destructiveness. It breeds resentment between parties who should be seeking common ground. It causes pain to gays and lesbians by encouraging them to believe that they are hated by most of their fellow citizens. And it promotes the poisonous idea that those who defend the traditional definition of marriage are moral cripples.

Cripple is as cripple does. In any case, where exactly is this "common ground" that Jacoby laments gays are destroying? If anything, the "too much too soon" crowd is closer to correct on this point. Almost everywhere that gay marriage is being opposed and roadblocked, there is absolutely no discussion whatsoever of "common ground." Quite the contrary, the anti-gay factions are making it quite clear, at nearly every juncture, that in their minds not only is full and equal marriage off the table, but so is even the slightest hint at any legal acknowledgment of gay couples, in any context under any circumstances. It is increasingly becoming not about marriage at all, but rather about the last desperate attempts to tell gays that they are not welcome, not equal and not normal. It is the bigots' last best excuse to hurt gays for the sake of hurting them.

We have seen it in, among other places, Michigan, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska and now California, all of whose anti-gay factions are going leaps and bounds beyond "defending traditional marriage." Almost to a person they would rather flush their Bibles down the toilet than explore reaching any "common ground" on recognition of same-sex partnerships. If Jacoby refuses to see that, then he is neither blind nor innocent. Again, those who advocate bigotry are bigots -- deal with it.

If Jacoby is so interested in "making nice with the gays," then perhaps he should worry a little less about the supposed "pain" that we are allegedly causing ourselves by exposing bigots for who and what they are (how pathetic is that argument?) and focus instead on the limitless hypocrisy of those who are trying to deny gays even the simplest, most innocuous dignities in the name of "defending traditional marriage."

One parting shot:

In America today no one needs a marriage license to form a lifelong union with a partner of the same sex. Gays and lesbians already have that right. What they don't have is the official stamp of approval...

That, and none of the over 1,000 legal protections that are automatically conferred by the legal status of marriage. In this I agree with Jacoby wholeheartedly: marriage is not just a piece of paper.

If you lay down with dogs, then you wake up with fleas. Stated differently, the best way to prove yourself not to be a bigot is to fight the bigots and not their victims! Try, for example, openly supporting the Vermont paradigm: full and equal rights, but just not called "marriage." I guarantee you not a single gay -- including me -- will ever call you a bigot if you did. But if the shoe fits...

Jacoby should worry a little less about telling gays how best to let themselves be discriminated against and worry a little more about being on the right side of history, which -- bigot or not -- he currently isn't.