Proposition 8 Blowback

I and others are still waiting for the thunder and lightning to start in California. And not the thunder and lightning from an infuriated deity raining death and destruction on a state that says it’s OK for gays and lesbians to get married.

The thunder and lightning from the righteous evangelical rightwing.

I expected something slightly less than a shooting war to break out over this. Instead, this is what you get:

Crickets.

Could it be that the logic and reasoning found in Judge Walker’s 138-page decision, including 80 findings of fact, was just too much for them? I doubt it. When was the last time that a conservative evangelical shied away from an argument simply because they didn’t have any facts on their side?

Crickets.

OK, I lied. I did come across two issues that have been brought up. Issues that are so ridiculous on their face that they’ll soon go away.

Issue Number 1: The judge struck down Proposition 8 because he, himself, is gay. “Gay and out” is the proper term, meaning that he doesn’t hide the fact that he is gay. They say that because he is gay that he failed to be impartial in the case.

So does this mean, by that line of logic, that black judges can’t preside over the trial of an African-American accused of a crime? Because they might be impartial? What about a female judge not being able to rule in a sexual harassment case because one of the litigants is a female?

Right, that piece of logic is absurd on its face. It even lends support to Judge Walker’s conclusion that denial of the right to marry presumes that gays are inferior. The presumption is that gays can’t rule in a gay rights trial but a Catholic judge is perfectly able to rule in an abortion trial.

Issue Number 2: Marriage functions in our society based on (as we see in this Christian Science Monitor piece)  this argument:

“Heterosexual relationships need marriage because of inferiority: the physical inferiority of sexual defenders to sexual attackers and the moral inferiority of male sexual attackers. Marriage is not about couples or lovers – it’s about the physical and moral integrity of women.”

Get it? Without marriage, weak but virtuous women would be subjugated by brutish men with no moral compass. That, and not procreation, is the sole purpose of marriage.

Fine.

If that’s the case then I guess we should outlaw the marriages of the elderly.

Or really, outlaw the marriages of any couple who can demonstrate that the male has trouble decking his bride-to-be, or for that matter, the female can demonstrate her ability to successfully clock her groom.

If marriage is all about who is the victor of a inter-spousal knock-down drag-out, then yeah, you win.