Todd Zywicki links to this column from Nelson Lund in which he argues that too many people oppose marriage rights for gays and lesbians for that position to be considered bigotry:
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled Wednesday that President Obama is a bigot. And not just the president. Joe Biden as well, and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sandra Day O’Connor. And maybe you, too.
[…]
It was a strange charge to make against the people of California. California has the most progressive domestic partnership law in the nation, which gives same-sex couples all the same substantive rights and privileges available to married couples. Why would the judge think that the only possible reason for favoring the traditional definition of marriage was bigotry? He reasoned that every other possible explanation for the voters’ decision was so ridiculous that only anti-gay feelings were left.
This is a very lawyerly argument, appealing to the tribalism of the liberal reader and the umbrage of the conservative one. That emotional appeal is necessary to avoid the fact that the argument itself is a complete non-sequitur. This country used to trade human beings for property because they were black, and for centuries a minority found this objectionable. Prejudice does not cease to be prejudice because it is widely held. The state discriminates against gays and lesbians by denying them the right to marry the consenting partner of their choice, and it does so based on the categorical belief that there is something wrong with couples of the same gender. Lund in fact, goes on to make that argument, he’d just prefer you not refer to his argument for discriminating against gays and lesbians as prejudice because he finds that upsetting.
Certainly as a rhetorical approach, referring to same-sex marriage opponents as bigots is tactically foolish because people take offense. That’s why you so often hear same-sex marriage opponents characterizing their opponent’s arguments as accusing anyone who opposes marriage equality as bigots. Most people are more likely to be accused of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation than be discriminated against, so more people have a more immediate interest in limiting accusations of prejudice more than the prejudice itself. If you can make the argument about whether or not you, the reader, are the bigot, instead of whether or not the state has a compelling interest in preventing gays and lesbians from having their commitments recognized, and whether or not fundamental rights should be subject to a show of hands, then you might actually win the argument. We are on the playground again, in fifth grade, and Bobby just whispered in your ear that Jimmy was talking shit about you. Don’t you want to punch him in the face?
Lund goes onto make the same tired arguments about how marriage is about procreating, which brought to its logical conclusion would force the state to prohibit marriage for heterosexual couples who cannot produce children. All this argument does is reinforce the fact that the only reason for the state to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples is on the basis of sexual orientation, which is not a very compelling reason. Whether or not it’s bigotry is beside the point.
