Like Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Towleroad has a post about the National Organization for Marriage's 'pro-family' fear-mongering zombies release gay marriage scare ad. I checked out the NOM and found this FAQ on their marriage talking points page, which attempts to give same-sex marriage opponents the answers to some awkward questions.

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

They have equated "believing mothers and fathers matter" to being against same-sex marriage, which it is not. They introduce African-American opposition, which is a red herring. Pointing out that marriage is not new and asserting their conclusion (not taking away rights) does not address the question of bigotry.

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

Prohibiting same-sex marriage continues the stigmitization of gay couples and continues their oppression. In this way, it is similar to bans on interracial marriage. The argument about marriage being for the purpose of male/female parenting assumes that marriage is always about having children and that alternatives to male/female parenting are inferior, both invalid assumptions.

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

The fact that same-sex marriage opponents desire an amendment to the constitution which codifies discrimination against gay people demonstrates that they understand that such discrimination is currently unconstitutional, confirming that judicial activism in states such as California and Iowa is correct.

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples does not remove any rights from anyone, as there is no right to define a word the way you wish. People who have beliefs that others find bigoted are not treated as bigots unless they act on those beliefs. Religious organizations who are acting as agents of the government by running public programs are obligated to follow public policy. If this is in conflict with their dogma, they may decline public funding and limit their bigotry to purely religious expression. The education issue is a red herring, however, if children are being taught that people may be who they are, that is a good thing. Same-sex marriage does not hold that children should not have both a mom and a dad, only that there are valid alternatives. There may be an assumption among same-sex opponents that exposing children to the idea of homosexuality may make them gay, which is of course, absurd. Finally, asserting that something is "not right" is not an argument.

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Actually, marriage is a legal contract and, for some, a sacrament.

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

Many decades ago, we decided that "separate but equal" did not work with respect to race relations. The same is case with respect to gay people and same-sex marriage. The only way to guarantee that everyone has the same rights is to say that everyone has the same rights.

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

An excellent point. The same-sex marriage opponents should be spending their time trying to make divorce illegal. I'm kidding, but hope I made a point that our legal system should not be used to enforce religious views.

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

There is an assumption in this argument concerning fitness to be a parent. Who is to decide this? Are two people, who together possess male and female parts, always the best parents? Are there not other factors, such as how these people participate in the lives of their children? There was one episode of Mr. Rodgers' Neighborhood that I cherish where he suggests that what a child really needs is one adult who really cares about them.

9. What about older or infertile couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

Again, there is the assumption of the ideal parents, which is invalid. If you accept this assumption, then it seems reasonable to deny male/female marriage to a couple who intends to neither procreate nor adopt.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.