GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE

Over the weekend, I got an e-mail promoting same-sex marriage from a gay Democrat named Patrick Nailon. We went back and forth on a few topics, and he finally summarized his supposedly air-tight case against the California Marriage Protection Act in three points, which I responded to:

1. By specifically excluding law-abiding, tax-paying, worshiping, honest members of the community specifically because of a difference in lifestyle, Prop 8 is discriminatory, and thus unconstitutional. Marriage has been amended throughout the history of the US to include different colors, which at that time was considered an assault on traditional marriage and interracial marriage resulted in arrests and people having to leave their states. Unconstitutional is wrong.

By now, long-time readers know what I think of the “it’s discriminatory, and thus unconstitutional” argument when applied to a constitutional amendment. No, he wasn’t referring to the federal constitution, and no, he’s probably never heard of the concept of a “revision” (which I’m still waiting to see an expert say would make an amendment unconstitutional). He has this asinine opinion that there’s some mysterious force in our democracy that will overrule a constitutional amendment that he considers discriminatory. As for “unconstitutional is wrong,” I wonder how he feels about the DC gun law, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. Are all laws like that one that restrict gun ownership “wrong” because they’re unconstitutional? And there is no question that in Texas, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin and many other states same-sex marriage or anything like it is unconstitutional. Does that mean Patrick thinks it’s “wrong” for two lesbians to marry each other in Dallas, Detroit, Atlanta, or Cleveland?

2. The Constitution of the United States of America specifically allows churches to practice as they will, including the right to marry whom they will. This also guarantees the rights of gays to marry, provided their congregation supports gay marriage. Just as one religion may prohibit eating cows and another allow it, freedom of worship, like freedom of “pursuit of happiness” is a right guaranteed in the US.

Uh, no. Fundamentalist Mormon churches allow polygamy - does that mean the laws must accommodate them? If I started a church that said a man can marry his adult sister, must incest then be legal? The Supreme Court has found Native Americans do not have a constitutional right to ingest peyote - they must get specific legislative permission or face our nation’s drug penalties.

3. The Pledge of Allegiance states that we are a nation of “…Liberty and Justice for all.” With laws that specifically forbid the right of marriage from certain members of the population, these words are a mockery and an insult to the men and women who died to pass down these rights to this and future generations.

Nobody except Patrick draws legislative conclusions from the Pledge of Allegiance. The current version of the Pledge is only 54 years old. And of course Patrick conveniently ignores that part about “Under G-d.”

I told Patrick that his three arguments are so unbelievably weak that I’m actually thrilled. If that’s the best his side can come up with, convincing voters to pass Proposition 8 will be a breeze.

He responded with a lengthy E-mail quoting several of the Lyin’ Kings and silly activists I’ve been talking about at GaysDefendMarriage.com. It also contained several death threats.

I actually hope most supporters of same-sex marriage are more sophisticated than Patrick - we have a few who clearly hold their own when they comment here at GaysDefendMarriage.com. Because debating against someone like him is far, far too easy.