Obscanity: You'll know it when you see it

ProtectMarriage completely misses the point. I’m shocked. Or not.

Outside the courtroom, the plaintiffs’ attorneys sharply criticized the notion that redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships would contribute to the deinstitutionalization of marriage. That argument, they said, is like saying that extending the right to vote to women “deinstitutionalized” the voting process.

Nice sound bite, but the analogy fails. Securing women’s right to vote didn’t do a thing to change the meaning and importance of voting. By contrast there is no doubt that re-defining marriage to include homosexual relationships would ipso facto divorce the institution itself from its fundamental, biological foundation. Nice try.

I think that’s kind of the point. Before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, politicians and pundits argued that extending voting rights to women would de-legitimize the political process, destroy homes and families, lead to double-voting, create crime, injure women, result in military ruin, and generally destroy the world. It didn’t. And neither will same-sex marriage.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.