Monday, November 22, 2004
Thou Shalt Not Play Hide the Salami
John Aravosis and his readers over at AMERICABlog had a discussion last night that tied together some of the ideas in both of my major posts yesterday. (I'm pretty sure it was a coincidence.) Aravosis suggests that one way to fight back against the religious right might be for liberals to call for a Constitutional amendment banning divorce, making adultery a felony, and forbidding acts of sodomy (including oral sex) even for legally married couples in the privacy of their own homes. Why shouldn't a ban on adultery be a major focus of "marriage protection"? A commenter to the post observes that adultery causes 100 percent more divorces than gay marriage, is one of the big sins proscribed by the Ten Commandments, and it breaks a vow made before God. Putting such a bold proposal on the table would force conservatives to argue in favor of adultery or divorce. As I noted yesterday, making them talk about the real effects of their positions instead of letting them argue on their hand-picked rhetorical ground is not a bad strategy.
Another commenter to John's post picked up on the idea that "deliberate childlessness" is a threat to traditional marriage. If marriage without procreation is an abomination against God, then the following types of marriage should be illegal, too:
The positions espoused by marriage-protecting, moral-values conservatives are riddled with inconsistencies sufficient to make those positions blow apart when put to the test. So maybe the best way to fight extreme positions is to show what will happen if they're taken to their logical extremes.
Recommended Reading: Somebody over at Daily Kos blogged about the AP article on conservatives and marriage I mentioned last night, and it generated some interesting comments.
Quote of the Day: "To be blunt, this is a fat-cat top-down campaign. The campaign staff doesn't really get grassroots."--top Kerry staffer, mid-February 2004, quoted by Susan at Daily Kos, describing her experiences trying to get hired by the Kerry campaign. I complained last winter that Kerry didn't understand the stakes in 2004--that he was running the kind of campaign that any Democrat could have run in any election of the last 30 years--and Susan's experience seems to confirm it.
John Aravosis and his readers over at AMERICABlog had a discussion last night that tied together some of the ideas in both of my major posts yesterday. (I'm pretty sure it was a coincidence.) Aravosis suggests that one way to fight back against the religious right might be for liberals to call for a Constitutional amendment banning divorce, making adultery a felony, and forbidding acts of sodomy (including oral sex) even for legally married couples in the privacy of their own homes. Why shouldn't a ban on adultery be a major focus of "marriage protection"? A commenter to the post observes that adultery causes 100 percent more divorces than gay marriage, is one of the big sins proscribed by the Ten Commandments, and it breaks a vow made before God. Putting such a bold proposal on the table would force conservatives to argue in favor of adultery or divorce. As I noted yesterday, making them talk about the real effects of their positions instead of letting them argue on their hand-picked rhetorical ground is not a bad strategy.
Another commenter to John's post picked up on the idea that "deliberate childlessness" is a threat to traditional marriage. If marriage without procreation is an abomination against God, then the following types of marriage should be illegal, too:
Marriage among couples if one of them is sterile.None of those ideas are inconsistent, if you believe that "The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children."
Marriage among couples if one of them is a soldier who got his balls blown off in Iraq.
Marriage among couples if the woman is past menopause.
Adoption by single mothers or single fathers.
Furthermore, if you get married and don't have kids by the time you die, the state should retroactively revoke all the rights that you took advantage of while you were defrauding the state.
The positions espoused by marriage-protecting, moral-values conservatives are riddled with inconsistencies sufficient to make those positions blow apart when put to the test. So maybe the best way to fight extreme positions is to show what will happen if they're taken to their logical extremes.
Recommended Reading: Somebody over at Daily Kos blogged about the AP article on conservatives and marriage I mentioned last night, and it generated some interesting comments.
Quote of the Day: "To be blunt, this is a fat-cat top-down campaign. The campaign staff doesn't really get grassroots."--top Kerry staffer, mid-February 2004, quoted by Susan at Daily Kos, describing her experiences trying to get hired by the Kerry campaign. I complained last winter that Kerry didn't understand the stakes in 2004--that he was running the kind of campaign that any Democrat could have run in any election of the last 30 years--and Susan's experience seems to confirm it.
