Skip to main content

Is it 'bigoted' to oppose gay marriage?

Ben and I debate gay marriage in this week's column for Scripps. Rather than give you my take in this space, I want to offer Ben's—because I find it somewhat troubling:
At a certain point -- long before the president concluded that the political benefits of supporting gay marriage this election cycle outweighed the disadvantages -- millions of Americans concluded that it's important affirm that marriage is exclusively a union between one man and one woman. 
Those people are called bigots, and worse. 
Be wary of those national polls showing a majority now supporting a redefinition of marriage. People who don't like being called bigots might just lie to pollsters. Pre-election polls in North Carolina predicted the vote on that state's constitutional amendment would be closer than the 20-point blowout it turned out to be. 
For the partisans of gay marriage, North Carolina's vote was an expression of bigotry and hatred, plain and simple. No other explanation could possibly suffice. 
Only bigotry -- and nothing else -- could explain similar votes in 29 other states. 
Only bigotry -- and nothing else -- could explain how six in 10 black voters in California voted in favor of Proposition 8, the 2008 constitutional amendment reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage, and cast their ballot for Obama at the same time. 
Maybe "bigotry" isn't the sole property of one side of this argument.
What Ben's argument does this week is replace any debate about the merits of gay marriage with familiar-if-tired conservative martyrdom-making. "They're calling us bigots!" doesn't really tell us why heterosexuals should get to exclude homosexuals from the legal right to civil marriage. (To be fair: This kind of martyrdom isn't usually Ben's rhetorical style, and he has made more substantive arguments about this in our previous debates on the issue.)

I myself think opposition to same-sex marriage comes from too many sources to reduce simply to "bigotry"—though that certainly is the motivation of some opponents. But I do think that many opponents of same-sex marriage have justified their religious opposition to a civil right by creating a counter-narrative of victimology.

Rights aren't a zero-sum affair: I myself would be content to live in a country where my gay friends could get married and my Christian friends express their disapproval. And contra Ben's statistics, the ability to get millions of people to vote against rights doesn't really tell us much about the legitimacy of those rights.


namefromthepast said…
Has anyone seriously asked WHY the government recognizes marriage at all? Marriage is a religious institution is it not?

By allowing government to sanction or ban marriage-of any kind-we're subjecting religious freedom to government review and I'm not ok with that.

Since our country is founded on a tolerance of all religions, sanctioning or banning is fundamentally flawed from the very beginning.
Anonymous said…
Marriage predates Christianity. There is no religious requirement for marriage in the USA and there are many current and past marriages in our country that did not occur in or with the approval of a religious institution. Religion holds no monopoly on marriage, much as it may proclaim itself to.

Governments the world over recognize marriage (though not all with the same rules, of course). The prevalence of marriage across countries and cultures suggest it is a human phenomenon; something many of us feel driven to for some reason. Seeking love and stability is just what many (most?) of us do.

Nobody likes to be called a bigot, its true. But if you read the dictionary definition of the word, its hard to argue that it doesn't fit.

As to our country being founded on tolerance of all religions - this is not really true. Those coming here for religious freedom were seeking to get away from countries that imposed a certain religion via law. Some groups when they came here were quite content to do their own forcing of religion, just not wanting others to do the same to them.

We've got a long history in the US of being very hypocritical.This current battle is nothing new. You won't hear anti-gay marriage folks arguing to bring back the rest of the laws of the Old Testament with its virginity requirements and condemnation of oysters, pork, and divorce. If they would like to prove themselves to be "not a bigot" lets bring on the fight against baby back ribs and get to work stoning "fornicators" - we've got a loooooong list to work on.
namefromthepast said…

Marriage obviously is mentioned biblically in the Old Testament so prior to Christianity true.

However, marriage is defined biblically at or near the dawn of time, therefore predating ours or any other human phenomenon. There is no way to untangle God from marriage from a Christian perspective.

If a Christian feels moved to oppose gay marriage on truely biblical grounds then possibly God is a bigot according to Webster. Let them fight that one out.

If the US government is to remain true to the first ammendment for everyone how can it recognize one marriage and not another? It can't. So why recognize any of them?

WHY does ANY marriage-religious in ceremony or not-need to be "approved" by the federal government?

Congress didn't feel the need to approve of oysters or pork why marriage?

Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…