I support same-sex marriage.

Actually, I would be even happier to see the government abandon recognition of marriage as a specific legal status, and simply recognize contractual obligations between individuals, regardless of their sex. But I’m a realist, and am not holding out for my libertarian utopia to come to fruition.

However, the tactics devised by advocates of same-sex marriage have been nothing short of deplorable, and occasionally brazenly self-serving at the expense of the same-sex couples. With this in mind, I have a few thoughts in the aftermath of the California Supreme Court’s decision regarding Proposition 8.

“Hate” is not the issue. Advocates of same-sex marriage are constantly referring to Prop.8 as an example of “hate”. They’re never specific as to exactly who is doing the hating, but they’re damn sure their use of the term is called for. The lack of specificity when the term is applied leads one to think that a vote for Prop. 8 can be, without further review, automatically attributed to “hate”.  Is it not possible that, in lieu of seething rage toward homosexuals, 52% of Californians are simply reluctant to redefine an institution almost as old as human history itself? Regardless of whether or not this fear enjoys empirical foundation (it does not), we should at least be willing to remove the horns from the heads of Californians who voted in the affirmative.

It’s not a “human rights” issue. Let’s put things in perspective: the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, female genital mutilation, and Nazi gas chambers are human rights issues. The lack of state recognition of same-sex unions is a tragedy which will be rectified by the gradual evolution of human society. Referring to the latter as a “human rights issue” degrades and defames the victims of true human rights abuses. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – which reads more like a letter to Santa Claus than a legal and philosophical declaration – fails to address the issue of same-sex marriage, probably because its authors could not fathom a world in which such an issue would receive widespread public attention. Obviously, they were wrong (knock-me-over-with-a-feather-and-spill-my-gin).

Equality is the problem, not the solution. Advocates of same-sex marriage are constantly employing “equality” as their rallying cry. This is, I feel, mostly due to the fact that using the term is politically expedient, as it appeals to the left’s growing neurotic obsession with equality as a concept (they’re rarely able to specify exactly what should be equal – only that equality is good and that they’re in favor of it). The irony here is that equality is the problem: the law treats every adult as if they want to marry a member of the opposite sex. That is, it treats everyone equally. Historically, arguments in favor of equality under the law have addressed legally prescribed practices based on a particular attribute (for example, “if you are black, you may not vote”). The exact opposite is the case with same-sex marriage, as all homosexual individuals are afforded the exact same opportunity that is afforded to their heterosexual counterparts: the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex. The problem, of course, is that gays and lesbians don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex. As such, the problem is that the law does not serve all segments of the population well. Moreover, while Jim Crow laws were deliberately constructed in an effort to specifically address a group (or groups) of people, the opposite-sex definition of marriage is simply an artifact of history. When laws regarding legal recognition of marriage – I assume this can be traced back to English Common Law, but have not done enough research to be sure – the notion of same-sex unions was simply not entertained. It was not until advocates of same-sex marriage sought to strong-arm the American populace into legally redefining what constitutes marriage that idiotic constitutional amendments such as Prop 8 were seen as necessary.

It’s not a matter for the courts. I am trying to post to this blog with greater regularity. As such, I have to resist the temptation to meticulously document every point I make, and will avoid enumerating the countless examples of commentators, journalists, and (dare I say it) academics who have indiscriminately applied the term “lawmakers” to the California Supreme Court, which has received much undue criticism from gay rights activists who were apparently absent from their high school civics class the day the separation of powers was discussed. Had these critics gone to the trouble of actually reading the opinion in question, they would have seen that the court was unhappy with the consequences of its ruling, and did so only out of an obligation to… well… do it’s damn job. The court’s job is to interpret the law, not make it.

Perhaps this is the best lesson for individuals who favor same-sex marriage, myself included: after duking it out in the courts for years, we must ask ourselves, “what hath it profiteth us?” With constitutional and/or statutory bans on recognition of same-sex unions in place in 38 U.S. states, are gays and lesbians better off today than they were before this idiotic crusade began? Would we not have been better off to seek public support first, then a change in the law?

This leads me to a final point about left-wing movements: the moral superiority factor. I have often mentioned my disgust with religiously-motivated, right-wing professions of moral certitude. But those emanating from the left are even more odious. At least Christian conservatives have the decency to base their moralizing on the injunctions of no lesser an entity than God Himself. Those on the left who consider themselves to be morally superior have the audacity to claim that they just know – either that, or they just don’t feel it necessary to explain themselves.

Sorry, friends, but your shit stinks too. It’s high time you wake up and smell it.

Then, get to the task of changing American minds on the subject of same-sex unions.