disingenuous
Sorry to make this the ‘gay marriage’ blog, but I’m fascinated and infuriated by what’s going on right now. I was watching CNN last night (uncharacteristically; I think 24-hour news is the devil) and they were discussing same-sex marriage, or more specifically, why some people are opposed to it.
James Dobson of Focus on the Family was being interviewed, and he blithely spouted a line I’ve heard a lot recently - that marriage is “between a man and a woman” and “that’s how it’s been for 3,000 years”.
The subterfuge is breathtaking. Dobson is a self-made Christian moral authority. I presume this means he’s read the Bible, and if so, I have to assume that he would have noticed that some of the principals therein are, like, polygamists and stuff. “One man, one woman” is not the same as “one man, one or more women”.
Never mind the fact that polygamy is still the norm in many parts of the world. I remember hearing once that plural marriage has been an accepted and aspired-to relationship in most of the cultures that have existed throughout history. I can’t source that, so take it with a grain of salt; it’s obvious anyway that polygamy has a long history. Dobson has to know this, but he’ll keep saying “it’s always been this way, forever and ever amen” for purposes of political expediency.
I’ve thought Dobson a jerk for years, and I expect this kind of crap from him. But I was really pissed to see a clip from a press conference given by Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, where he asserted that marriage is between a man and a woman and that’s how it’s always been. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the gist.
What makes me so mad about that? Mitt Romney is LDS; that’s what makes me so mad. Oppose gay marriages on the grounds of your faith if you must; everybody has to follow their conscience, after all. But as a member of a church which so recently suffered the wrath of he U.S. government for defining marriage according to their own religious beliefs, how can he possibly rationalize campaigning against others for doing the same, by pretending that one-man-one-woman marriage is the only kind ever to have been acceptable? I see red (and construct massive run-on sentences) just thinking about it.
Of course, the fact that polygamy was once practiced by the people of the Bible, but is now renounced by Christians, is proof of the very thing that Dobson and Romney and others are trying to obscure or deny: the definition of marriage changes over time. In mainstream American culture, marriage is no longer a contract in which ownership of female chattel is passed from a father to a husband in exchange for dowry. Marriage contracts are only valid if entered into willingly by both parties (it wasn’t always that way). Women are able to obtain a divorce if needed, and have legal rights to their own property and bank accounts with which to take care of themselves if that need arises. You can marry someone of a different race.
Some of those changes predate the founding of the U.S.A. Some do not; anti-miscegenation laws were on the books in some states until the Supreme Court struck them down in 1967. Significantly, polls at the time showed that most Americans opposed interracial marriage, just as most oppose gay marriage in the polls today. But point me to the politician who still thinks interracial marriage is a thorn in the side of civilization.
Oppose gay marriage all you like. But don’t predicate the argument against it on a lie.
