Sunday, October 20, 2013

Quota Time

Ms. Prince does not want same-sex "marriage" on the ballot because minority rights should not be at the mercy of majoritarian rule. Interesting. Yet another gay rights activist who is skeptical of the numerous polls that show that the majority has suddenly become enlightened about same-sex "marriage". Yeah, okay, cheap shot. One can oppose putting rights up for a vote on principle, regardless of what the polls may say. Yet, no one has explained (to me, at least) why same-sex "marriage" is a fundamental, inalienable right. Assertions that it is abound, no doubt, but assertions are not explanations, much less arguments. Goebelian Propaganda? Yes. Arguments? No.

In fact, most of the people with whom I have debated this matter either cannot tell me what a right even is (much less tell me why the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is one) or discard rights talk altogether in favor of very nebulous discussions of "equality".  Actually I am being charitable by suggesting that a discussion about equality takes place, and it almost never does.  Rather, it seems S.O.P. for ss'm' advocates to assume, not discuss, equality between gay and straight relationships , and doing so, although proponents of ss'm' either are not aware of this or are aware but choose to ignore it, simply begs the question of the entire debate.

The bottom line is that it has not been established that ss'm' is a fundamental, inalienable right, whatever that may be, and until it is, one cannot argue that the fundamental, inalienable "right" to legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" should be like all other such rights protected from the vagaries of public opinion.

But Ms. Prince's other objection to putting ss'm' on the ballot is far more interesting. If it were on the ballot, then she would have to inform her kids about the vote, and doing so would make her kids realize that she and her partner are not "married" but actually living in sin. This would humiliate the kids because all of a sudden they would feel abnormal because their guardians are not "married".

This implies, of course, that kids of divorced, co-habitating, or single parents should feel shame, but let's leave that aside. If Ms. Prince is worried about her kids feeling abnormal about having unmarried parents, then you would think she would also be worried about her kids asking her why they have two mommies when every other kid has just one mother and a father. That may very well cause humiliating feelings of abnormality as well, you know? But Ms. Prince somewhat surprisingly is not too worried about this and explains why:

"We are fortunate to live in Maplewood, N.J., an exceptionally progressive and diverse town, where two-mom and two-dad families are almost as common as opposite-sex households. Our kids don't think our family is strange; to them it's just one more example of a family, as worthy and as beautiful as any other."

So, because they live in a town that has almost as many same-sex as opposite-sex households, her children do not feel abnormal at all. Well, what if they lived somewhere where the overwhelming number of households are opposite-sex? Wouldn't this cause her kids to feel strange and abnormal? Does this mean that in the name of equality and fairness we should gerrymander neighborhoods across our fair land so that each one has a number of same-sex households with children sufficient to ensure at least the appearance of their quotidien commonness? Ms. Prince's anxiousness about normality for her kids does logically lead to such an absurd proposition: neighborhood quotas based on sexual orientation.

This is insane, but I only think so not because of anything that used to be called "logic" or "common sense". No, I am just an irrational bigot who wants to gas Jews.

No comments: