Stock up on popcorn. In a few days the Supreme Court is finally going to hear oral arguments concerning same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee which will likely have ramifications for the entire country. Arguments against marriage equality have been unintentionally entertaining in the past few years, and even though many of them have been debunked and laughed out of court, the right wing never seems to run out of material. Indeed, the last batch of amici curiae have been beyond ridiculous if not outright desperate. Conservatives seem to have learned that their arguments from tradition haven’t worked, and have now resorted to nontraditional, unorthodox thinking, like letting a few unhappy children decide the marriages rights of others or that so-called “ex-gays” are more persecuted than gay people. It makes one wonder how a law school graduate could stand before the highest court in the nation and make such an absurd case with a straight face.
Although I’m curious what the conservatives will say in their defense, I’m actually even more intrigued by what will be left unsaid. We’ve all seen this circus before: protesters on both sides rally around the courthouse with signs and megaphones to support their cause. Aside from the standard “God Hates F@#$”, some of the most popular signs on the opposition include:
God’s Marriage = 1 Man & 1 Woman
Homosexuality Is Sin Lev. 18:22
We Believe In Biblical Marriage
You probably won’t hear any of these arguments on the inside, however. Their lawyers are smart enough to know that these wouldn’t hold up in a court of law. Instead, the defense will likely be grasping at legalese concepts that don’t even interest the average person. The last time this comedy show was in town, the hearings revolved around the issues of legal standing and precedent. It ought to bother the protesters that their side’s legal counsel doesn’t truthfully represent their cause, but all of this is just pretext anyway. The opponents of same-sex marriage don’t care so much what means it takes to make their case, just so long as their position wins in the end. Similarly, when the Obama administration refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the Supreme Court, Republicans accused the President of dereliction of duty, yet when governor Scott Walker refused to defend Wisconsin’s same-sex registry in court, they were silent. It ultimately doesn’t seem to matter what principles they purport, they seem to stand for any argument that will support their pre-determined position even if it’s contradictory.
However, what those protesters outside really believe is even worse than what’s on their signs. They don’t seem to understand that “Biblical marriage” is not as narrow as they define it, and actually allowed for polygamy, concubinage, and incest (Abraham married his sister even though that’s also forbidden in Leviticus). Though they may sincerely believe homosexuality is a sin, I would argue even this is not the real basis for their opposition politics. After all, they’re not trying to make divorce or unmarried homosexuality illegal, nor any other sins for that matter. The textual basis for the right’s severe homophobia is a specific interpretation of the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. This narrative is a rather difficult text on which to base sexual ethics; while it does suggest an attempted male-on-male rape, the protagonist Lot also offers his virgin daughters to the rapists. After surviving God’s destruction of the wicked cities, however, Lot’s daughters have the last laugh when they get their father drunk and rape him. It is therefore not a clear moral code that defines the conservative position against homosexuality, but rather an irrational fear of a wrathful God raining down fire and brimstone on America for one particular sin and not others.
This sky-is-falling alarmism has been a persistent unspoken factor in the opposition of every gay rights milestone, yet it never materialized after Sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional, DADT was repealed, or same-sex marriage was legalized in various states and countries. Nevertheless, the religious right has been led to believe that nationwide gay marriage will somehow be the next red line that invites the wrath of God, and if they successfully block it they’ll conveniently never have to prove they were right. Conservatives have periodically confessed to this phobia in the past, declaring AIDS, 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and Hurricane Sandy to be God’s punishment for homosexuality. These scapegoat attempts all backlashed, making the Christians saying them look ridiculous and repulsive. As a result, most of the protesters have restrained their public positions for broader appeal. According to Chris Mooney’s book, The Republican Brain, “People don’t believe whatever they want to believe, they believe whatever they can get away with believing.” Conservatives seem to be learning what they can get away with outside of their church walls, outside of the courthouse, and inside the Supreme Court.
Conservatism has followed this pattern before, adjusting positions that have become unpopular or unacceptable for renewed mass appeal. Jim Crow laws, for instance, were a blatant attempt to disadvantage non-whites, and this strategy worked as long as the South was deeply racist. Eventually, the unfairness of the laws was too overt to deny, so the “separate but equal” defense of segregation was invented. People who wouldn’t have supported racist policies purely for racism could still support a racist policy if it was depicted as fair to whites and non-whites. When they lost the battle against school integration, they still tried to keep it alive in private institutions as a matter of “religious freedom.” Their anti-gay crusade now seems to be retreating along a similar trajectory.
It must be emphasized that this duplicity does not occur on the other side: advocates of marriage equality make the same arguments in and out of the courtroom. Liberals truly believe gay people should be able to marry their partners for the reasons they claim; namely liberty and equality. They do not conceal any ulterior motives, yet ironically the Right-wing often accuses them of secretly conspiring to destroy the family or the church. But as long as the Right won’t admit to the Justices that they really want to stop gays from marrying for religious reasons–specifically the unreasonable belief that God will judge America if the Republicans don’t get their way–then none of their arguments should be taken very seriously. Any legal point in their defense that the Justices may entertain is purely coincidental. Just as conservatives already know they cannot get away with religious arguments in a legal case, they should also be made aware that they will not get away with arguments substituted for religious ones. If they won’t give their real reasons, nobody should accept their fake reasons.
Matthew Jensen
Matthew Jensen is a freelance writer and activist who lives in Los Angeles, California. Growing up in conservative Christian fundamentalism, he became a student of world religions and eventually broadened his views. He is a fan of silent movies and any books that have been written or copied by hand, from ancient texts to modern comic books.
Follow Me:
The post The Real Reason The Right Wants To Ban Gay Marriage appeared first on Political Moll.