Skip to main content

Beware the slippery slope of marriage equality

Eclecta Blog puts forth fairly compelling arguments for non-traditional marriage (via Dan Savage):
In these instances, I’m reminded that the tradition of marriage is so sacred to many Americans that the notion of Republicans being allowed to marry can offend their very being. “Imagine,” their smoldering eyes seem to be screaming, “My dear, normal child being forced to sit in a classroom being forced to learn about Newt Gingrich’s belief that marriage should only between a man and a woman who doesn’t have cancer.”
I'm usually pretty tolerant, especially when it comes to issues of marriage. But I don't know about this one. What's next, letting Tea Partiers marry each other? Can you imagine it? Just...yuck.

Imagine if both of these guys were republicans. I know, right? Ew!

Personally, I believe we should let the states decide whether republicans can marry other republicans. That is, unless the states vote in favor of letting them marry. In that case, I believe in turning to state referendum, funded by rich people outside of the state, like with Prop 8. If that doesn't work, I believe in federal legislation outlawing it, and otherwise denying republicans basic rights such as the ability to visit a loved one in the hospital, or deporting their loved one if their republican "partner" is from another country (like with DOMA).

So in summary: Let the states decide, then referendum, then federal law. Whichever step prevents it. It's the way our fine country works when it comes to the rights of minorities.

In all seriousness, I think that any group who wishes to deny rights to another group must use arguments that cannot be applied back to them. It's the whole "do unto others" idea that that radical, progressive hippy guy advocated 2000 years ago.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An annual note to all the (NSF) haters

It's that time of year again: students have recently been notified about whether they received the prestigious NSF Graduate Student Research Fellowship. Known in the STEM community as "The NSF," the fellowship provides a student with three years of graduate school tuition and stipend, with the latter typically 5-10% above the standard institutional support for first- and second-year students. It's a sweet deal, and a real accellerant for young students to get their research career humming along smoothly because they don't need to restrict themselves to only advisors who have funding: the students fund themselves!
This is also the time of year that many a white dude executes what I call the "academic soccer flop." It looks kinda like this:


It typically sounds like this: "Congrats! Of course it's easier for you to win the NSF because you're, you know, the right demographic." Or worse: "She only won because she's Hispanic."…

Culture: Made Fresh Daily

There are two inspirations for this essay worth noting. The first is an impromptu talk I gave to the board of trustees at Thatcher School while I was visiting in October as an Anacapa Fellow. Spending time on this remarkable campus interacting with the students, faculty and staff helped solidify my notions about how culture can be intentionally created. The second source is Beam Times and Lifetimes by Sharon Tarweek, an in-depth exploration of the culture of particle physics told by an anthropologist embedded at SLAC for two decades. It's a fascinating look at the strange practices and norms that scientists take for granted.
One of the stories that scientists tell themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, is that science exists outside of and independent of society. A corollary of this notion is that if a scientific subfield has a culture, e.g. the culture of astronomy vs. the culture of chemistry, that culture is essential rather than constructed. That is to say, scientific c…

The subtle yet real racism of the Supreme Court

Judge Roberts, a member of the highest court in the land, which is currently hearing the sad story of mediocre college aspirant Abigail Fischer, recently asked, "What unique ­perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class? I’m just wondering what the benefits of diversity are in that situation?" 
Did you catch the white supremacy in this question? If not, don't feel bad because it's subtly hidden beneath the cloaking field of colorblind racism. (As for Scalia's ign'nt-ass statements, I'm not even...)
Try rephrasing the question: "What unique perspective does a white student bring to a physics classroom?" The answer is, of course, absolutely nothing! Why? Because race isn't biological, and is therefore not deterministic of cognitive abilities. Did you perhaps forget that you knew that when considering Roberts' question? If so, again, it's understandable. Our society and culture condition all of us to forget basic facts …