Alex Blaze

Prop 8 trial: At least they admit they aren't the "reality-based community"

Filed By Alex Blaze | March 01, 2010 6:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: david olson, gay marriage, Karen Ocamb, LGBT, marriage, Prop. 8, same-sex marriage, theodore boies

Final briefs were filed in the Prop 8 trial, and we also found out that, despite the judge's suggestion otherwise, closing arguments won't be televised. You can read more about Olson and Boies's arguments at Karen's place, which are really just a summary of arguments they've been making all along.

But this stood out from the San Jose Mercury News about the homophobes' arguments:

In papers filed late Friday, lawyers for the sponsors of California's gay marriage ban offered new twists on their claim that allowing gay men and lesbians to wed could undermine man-woman unions.

The potential harms they cited included giving bisexuals a legal basis for pursuing group marriages and unmarried fathers an incentive to abandon their children.

Lawyers for gay marriage supporters argued that no evidence existed to back those claims.

I love the dry way the Mercury News puts it since it makes the other side sound positively insane.

Then again, their arguments have never been sound, people just bought them because they were compelled to out of ignorance or antipathy.

But seeing them lain bare, presented to be examined for their small-t truth, not big-T Truth, should give us pause. We've been arguing against this? Journalists called people who believe this "values voters"? This is considered a respectable political position? There is research being done to debate people who believe this?

And, yes, there are people who do and they have to be talked down from the edge because no matter how silly their beliefs they have a vote. It's like this on pretty much every other controversial issue in American politics, where the right thinks that they're entitled to live on their own planet in their own reality, so why not here as well?


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


This is why, should this thing go to SCOTUS, I cant wait to see how Scalia et al rationalize their way out to agree to the "arguments" (and I use the term oh so loosely) from the Loyal Opposition. There's nothing there, just a lot of innuendo and "maybe" and "well, of course it makes sense to me; why doesnt it to you???" hysteria.

This could lead to cats and dogs will living together! You'll see chocolate in peanut butter!

Whats next?

Um . . . cats and dogs do live together in some homes, and I love Reeses Peanut Butter Cups. I think what next thing will be green eggs and ham, somewhere in their very own Whoville.

Yes, the Religious Wrong are residents of the new Alice in Wonderland, with Johnny Depp.

It's too easy to just make fun of these arguments. They think fathers will abandon their children because the way to keep men tied to their children is to encourage them to marry and reinforce the idea that the purpose of marriage is the uniting of a bio mom and bio dad to care for their bio children. Once same-sex couples can marry then the purpose of marriage clearly ISN'T creating a unit for a bio mom and bio dad to raise a child. They think this sends the wrong message to men who need their idea of marriage reinforced or they will be more likely to f-ck and run. There actually IS logic to this, because we do believe the purpose of marriage is something other than uniting a bio mom and dad together to raise their bio child. Rather than make fun of the argument, I actually think we have to engage it. We have to say directly that children do well in a variety of family forms and that if men abandoning their children is a bad thing, well, that cannot possibly be the fault of same-sex marriage (not to mention all the gay men who are and want to be fathers!). There's more to it than this, of course, but these arguments have worked in some courts and they need serious rebuttal.

That is the unpleasant thing really. We have to keep responding to the same arguments over and over and while they are sorely laboured they still keep popping up. I agree that the response has to be clear and constant and engaged. We have to respond to pseudo-logic as rhetoric and flawed logic with clear logic to support our positions. I prefer to deal with flawed logic as rhetoric from my opponents because it means that they have opened the door to some type of logic in the debate and then I can engage in logic. IT is much better than the "bible tells me so" arguments that so many use.
I say that they should keep the ducks coming and we keep shooting the little duckies down until we win the cupie doll.