thomascwaters.com

The language and arguments used, especially by those who make a living at discourse, deliberation and meaning, intrigue me. And it amazes me that in the battle over same-sex marriage, the single most important thing to most who oppose same-sex marriage, is the protection of a definition of a word.

The link below is to an opinion editorial in the Wall Street Journal which is quite disappointing to read for it lacks much, and is little more than a regurgitation of basic conservative positions, not much different than what can be found on Fox News.

For George, “democracy is working” through referenda and state legislators, but court action, he labels as interference. Indeed, the purpose of his editorial is to state that it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to get involved, just as it was wrong for the high court to do so in Roe vs Wade. Perhaps, my understanding of Democracy is lacking, but I understand it to be based on a three-part system of government where each has checks and balances on the other. To advocate for a two-part system without a judicial branch would not be democracy at all! George, doesn’t explicitly argue for this two-part system, rather, he may be accused of implying a four-part system where the voting public, the legislature, and the judicial branch are joined by a fourth- the politically influenced who determine if the court has acted correctly or not. Personally, I’m comfortable with a tree-part system where each branch of government is an equal partner, assuring that democracy exists for all.

George employs fallacious reasoning when discussing Roe vs Wade. He writes:

Even many supporters of legal abortion now consider Roe a mistake.

Really? I haven’t found any at all, let alone “many.” Here is a statement intended to appear as authoritative, when in fact it is little more than a unsubstantiated lie. But that’s all right. Conservatives often care less for fact, and focus more on hyperbole. But what is most intriguing to me is this criticism of individuals taking advantage of their constitutional rights to bring a case to the judicial system.

Additionally, George’s expressed fear that the Supreme Court will find in favor of same-sex marriage is surprising. Or perhaps it is his lack of confidence in the judicial process overall that is most surprising. The urgency expressed suggests that the Supreme Court would be hearing a case about California’s Prop 8 tomorrow. In reality, because democracy is working, the case is years and years away from the Supreme Court.

There are two elements of George’s argument that are most confusing to me. First is his indecision as to what is needed. He says:

So, before judging whether traditional marriage laws should be junked, we must decide what marriage is.

But then, a sentence later says:

We should strengthen, not redefine, marriage.

So, which is it- we should decide what marriage is, or stick to what some feel that marriage is – between a man and a woman?

However, the part that confuses me the most is his use of the “body-part” argument. This is the general homophobic and sexphobic argument which suggests that male and females are like the electrical circuit, and some body parts fit some places and not others. So underneath everything, George’s argument is the same argument exposed by others-gay men and lesbian women deserve to be treated as less than full members of our society, because they couple in ways where the body parts don’t align for procreation.

The reality is that families exist and thrive which do not conform to the Ozzie and Harriet model that George suggests. Thousands of babies are born our of wedlock, and still others are born to parents (opposite sex as well as same-sex) with artificial insemination and other mechanisms. So, the procreation argument is not very compelling. Civil marriage provides those same-sex families with the same rights and privileges as other families, and will strengthen the family unit in ways that are good for our society, as well as for the individuals involved.

It is time to strop worrying about the definition of a word, and begin to focus on how we strengthen families and allow all families to thrive.

George: Gay Marriage, Democracy and the Supreme Court – WSJ.com.