Star Parker resorts to fallacious arguments in an attempt to deem marriage equality as a liberal and deviant construct however the reality is that mow, nothing can stop the progress towards full marriage equality across the United States. Parker tries to be eloquent yet the arguments presented are lacking if one digs into them with any depth.
I’d guess if I asked the Wall Street Journal editors if the U.S. Constitution should be viewed as a “living document” — if our understanding of its words and what they mean should be open to change to reflect attitudes of the moment — they would say “no.”
However the Constitution is a living document contains a Bill of Rights. The whole of the document is amended through time to better articulate the meaning of the base document and to enhance that understanding based on the context of our changing society.
Liberals think the Constitution should be re-engineered every few years like an iPad.
Marriage Equality is not a liberal or conservative issue and cases can be made for it from either political philosophy. Despite the comment about populism, a conservative view of marriage equality is one where the government stays out of people’s personal lives.
Lincoln’s rejoinder to the idea of “popular sovereignty” — that states should vote to determine if slavery would be legal — was that there are core truths — truths that define right and wrong, good and evil — that precede the democratic process. To reject this premise is to buy into moral chaos. Which is what we are approaching today.
I’m not certain that Lincoln’s commentary can be so nicely condensed this way. Rather Lincoln was identifying the fact that something as big as slavery left to individual states could mean that the punishment could vary from state to state: this was the problem for Lincoln who first and foremost believed in maintaining the unity of the United States.
And it is a far stretch to suggest that Lincoln would agree that marriage equality was evil. Historians demonstrate that Lincoln’s religiosity is debatable. He may have believed in an all seeing God, he also respected the beliefs of others which we may have been different from his own, and his use of biblical rhetoric may have more to do with contemporary rhetorical style than with his personal beliefs.
But Parker’s purpose is more elementary. Here, the attempt is to equate the foundation of conservatism with anti-marriage equality; a position which cannot be supported rationally.
To deal with the crisis of the collapse of family and marriage by redefining what they are is the sign of a society losing its way.
Unfortunately Parker resorts to fear mongering. While statistics are employed here to suggest that marriage is in trouble, the reality is that statistics can be hand-picked to support any position and missing here is the statistic for divorce which is far more detrimental to marriage than anything else in our culture. If anything Parker demonstrates why marriage equality is essential, as it will increase the number of marriages not harm it.
But taking personal choices to deviate from our social standards of right and wrong, true and false, and decide to change those truths and standards, so that nothing is any longer considered deviant, is a bridge to nowhere.
Now, Parker’s true purpose is illuminated. Hers is a solely anti-gay bias cloaked in fallacious argument. Parker misses that he reason marriage equality did well in the recent election is because his is an argument that few people actually buy anymore. The American people will vote for marriage equality as they watch their sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, parents, friends and coworkers who are gay and lesbian form meaningful lasting committed relationships and deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Parker’s argument is pure homophobia based upon a far right religious perspective, and he would do well to better understand conservative icons like Lincoln. In fact some historians believe even Lincoln was gay.
Photo courtesy of cliff1066™