LEAVE THE ANIMALS ALONE!
Conservatives, I'm begging you: Leave animals out of your gay marriage talking points
Wednesday, March 17th 2010, 4:00 AM
RELATED NEWS
Kirchick: On 'ask,' Lieberman answers the call
Ford hits a Stonewall in West Village on gay nups
Scott Brown campaigns for McCain in Arizona
Hiram supporters say foe Peralta is a puppet of 'rich gay fanatics'
Kappstatter: The Rev thinks civil unions could pass
Over the weekend, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who's running against John McCain in Arizona's Republican Senate primary, resurrected a preposterous old saw. Lamenting the Massachusetts Supreme Court's move to define marriage as merely "the establishment of intimacy," he said, "I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse."
Another day, another idiot worries that gay marriage - the union between two adult, consenting humans - will lead to bestiality. No longer just fodder for crazies, the idea that men and women will betroth their pets if we allow gay marriage has been bandied about so often now, it's officially become tired.
That something like human-pet paranoia is so mainstreamed blows my mind. But for years, crusty old men have been fretting nervously that allowing gays to marry will mean that you can then exchange vows with Mr. Ed.
The Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have long linked gay marriage to bestiality, as well as to incest and polygamy.
In 2003, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) wondered (aloud!) if the fuzzy legality of gay marriage could open the door for marriage between man and dog, gifting to us the adorable bon mot, "man on dog" love. (There's a joke in here somewhere about looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I'm afraid to fully flesh it out.)
Fundamentalist Christians aren't the only ones who have pushed this story line. Back in 2004, Rabbi Chaim Schwartz in Boston took up the well-worn chestnut, saying, "It's morally incorrect, and what's next? Bestiality? Marrying a dog? Marrying your cat?"
And unbelievably, it's not just poor, unsuspecting animals we're subjecting to this terrible experiment in apocalyptic paranoia. Just last year, David Gibbs, the lawyer who fought to keep Terri Schiavo on life support in 2005, peered courageously into the future to warn of another potential nonexistent threat: man-robot marriage.
This will not likely be among the list of topics at your next Mensa meeting. Nor, hopefully, will it get any coverage in constitutional law class.
What's unfortunate is that there are plenty of reasonable arguments against gay marriage that come out of both religious and constitutional contexts, one being Hayworth's own assertion that it's not for the courts to define marriage. If he'd just have left the equine out of it, he might have made a convincing argument.
Instead, conservatism writ large gets tied into this bizarre obsession with zoophilia. Hayworth and others like him know better. Conservative principles are supposed to be common-sense, pragmatic and grounded in reality.
These guys make the ideology sound as batty as the far-left liberal pieties that they rightly mock.
Not to mention, there are plenty of conservatives in good standing - Log Cabin Republicans, for one - who support gay rights. In fact, philosophically, conservatism's imprimatur on keeping the government out of our private lives makes it a natural ally for the gay marriage issue. And many conservatives are working hard to point this out.
But the real tragedy is that there's an obvious response to all of this moronic anxiety - one so obvious that no one really even bothers to offer it. So I will do it now, and hope that we can finally put this thing to bed.
See, to get married in any state of the Union, you need to provide proof of identification: a driver's license, a birth certificate, a Social Security number.
I don't know too many horses, Mr. Hayworth, that can pass a road test or collect retirement benefits. Robots, maybe - but barn animals? No.
So from here on out, please: Oppose gay marriage all you want. Just don't rely on the image of a weird vacation at Old MacDonald's place to do it.
secupp@redsecupp.com
Wednesday, March 17th 2010, 4:00 AM
RELATED NEWS
Kirchick: On 'ask,' Lieberman answers the call
Ford hits a Stonewall in West Village on gay nups
Scott Brown campaigns for McCain in Arizona
Hiram supporters say foe Peralta is a puppet of 'rich gay fanatics'
Kappstatter: The Rev thinks civil unions could pass
Over the weekend, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who's running against John McCain in Arizona's Republican Senate primary, resurrected a preposterous old saw. Lamenting the Massachusetts Supreme Court's move to define marriage as merely "the establishment of intimacy," he said, "I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse."
Another day, another idiot worries that gay marriage - the union between two adult, consenting humans - will lead to bestiality. No longer just fodder for crazies, the idea that men and women will betroth their pets if we allow gay marriage has been bandied about so often now, it's officially become tired.
That something like human-pet paranoia is so mainstreamed blows my mind. But for years, crusty old men have been fretting nervously that allowing gays to marry will mean that you can then exchange vows with Mr. Ed.
The Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have long linked gay marriage to bestiality, as well as to incest and polygamy.
In 2003, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) wondered (aloud!) if the fuzzy legality of gay marriage could open the door for marriage between man and dog, gifting to us the adorable bon mot, "man on dog" love. (There's a joke in here somewhere about looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I'm afraid to fully flesh it out.)
Fundamentalist Christians aren't the only ones who have pushed this story line. Back in 2004, Rabbi Chaim Schwartz in Boston took up the well-worn chestnut, saying, "It's morally incorrect, and what's next? Bestiality? Marrying a dog? Marrying your cat?"
And unbelievably, it's not just poor, unsuspecting animals we're subjecting to this terrible experiment in apocalyptic paranoia. Just last year, David Gibbs, the lawyer who fought to keep Terri Schiavo on life support in 2005, peered courageously into the future to warn of another potential nonexistent threat: man-robot marriage.
This will not likely be among the list of topics at your next Mensa meeting. Nor, hopefully, will it get any coverage in constitutional law class.
What's unfortunate is that there are plenty of reasonable arguments against gay marriage that come out of both religious and constitutional contexts, one being Hayworth's own assertion that it's not for the courts to define marriage. If he'd just have left the equine out of it, he might have made a convincing argument.
Instead, conservatism writ large gets tied into this bizarre obsession with zoophilia. Hayworth and others like him know better. Conservative principles are supposed to be common-sense, pragmatic and grounded in reality.
These guys make the ideology sound as batty as the far-left liberal pieties that they rightly mock.
Not to mention, there are plenty of conservatives in good standing - Log Cabin Republicans, for one - who support gay rights. In fact, philosophically, conservatism's imprimatur on keeping the government out of our private lives makes it a natural ally for the gay marriage issue. And many conservatives are working hard to point this out.
But the real tragedy is that there's an obvious response to all of this moronic anxiety - one so obvious that no one really even bothers to offer it. So I will do it now, and hope that we can finally put this thing to bed.
See, to get married in any state of the Union, you need to provide proof of identification: a driver's license, a birth certificate, a Social Security number.
I don't know too many horses, Mr. Hayworth, that can pass a road test or collect retirement benefits. Robots, maybe - but barn animals? No.
So from here on out, please: Oppose gay marriage all you want. Just don't rely on the image of a weird vacation at Old MacDonald's place to do it.
secupp@redsecupp.com
Comments