Adrienne BoettingerFriday,29 March 2013

The Snap:

Homosexual couples want to destroy the sanctimonious…um, sanctified institution of marriage. This is part of their evil plot for world domination, forcing everyone to dress better and groom more. We must save marriage! The Constitution…um, some document says only men and women can marry and only to procreate. Preventing same-sex marriage isn’t enough. We must abolish divorce and stop infertile opposite-sex couples from marrying. Divorce lawyers and adulterers must be imprisoned. Because if marriage changes and same-sex couples get the same rights as opposite-sex couples, the earth will definitely crash into the sun.

The Download:

I’m still not sure why same-sex marriage is supposed to be bad. I’m not alone; even the lawyer defending Prop 8 couldn’t name one specific way that same-sex marriage hurts marriage or families.

Some arguments I’ve read have been based on religion. Regardless of a not-so-little thing called separation of church and state, let’s look at the Biblical argument. Protestors have been shouting that the Bible says a marriage isn’t a marriage if it’s not one man and one woman. The thing is the Bible says a lot of stuff that we don’t follow word-for-word anymore. The Bible says men who can’t control themselves, need to get married (advice to my fellow single ladies, stay the hell away from the ones who can’t keep it zipped) and that divorce isn’t allowed. There’s also a whole bunch on wives submitting to husbands (hells-to-the-no). Furthermore the Bible also says some disturbing things about slavery that, thankfully, seem to have fallen by the wayside.

So even without separation of church and state, the Biblical argument doesn’t really fly. Other protestors, along with previous commentaries, have argued that allowing same-sex marriage would be misreading the Constitution. Maybe they need to actually read the document though because it mentions marriage exactly zero times.

Then there’s the argument that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, or that this is an issue of morality (or at least morality in the eyes of opponents of same-sex marriage). Hmm…looks like the Supremes have ruled that maintaining tradition for tradition’s sake isn’t Constitutional and that moral disapproval doesn’t hold water. Plus, I’m pretty sure Congress dictating what’s moral and what’s not is a sign of the forthcoming apocalypse.

What about protecting marriage and the family? Well, clearly people past the age of procreation or those unable or unwilling to procreate can no longer marry. I mean, if the point of marriage is to pop out a bunch of children then there’s no point to marriage without kids. And definitely no more divorces or even separation.

Rest easy, equality haters and those afraid of change, there’s a fair number of Supremes who seem predisposed to let the moment for landmark decisions pass them by. While the Court decides, we wait. And pray. IMHO, if you’re lucky enough to find love, no one should be able to tell you it’s the wrong kind.

Hat Tips:

Salon, Fox “News,” Slate, The Bible, CNN, U.S. Constitution, New Republic, Policy Mic, The Atlantic, Image Credit: Flickr

Take Action!


  1. […] has no effect on me and my marriage at all. I see no reason to ban same sex marriage. I also think Adrienne did an excellent job of breaking down the arguments one by one. However, I do want to focus on one […]

Subscribe to get updates delivered to your inbox