Logic Upside Maryland’s Head

md_we_hate_gays_logo2.jpg

Yesterday I wrote about Maryland’s discriminatory ruling against Gay Marriage.

Reader Karen had some a very detailed logical smackdown to share:

when i, as an individual, am denied the right to marry any particular other individual *because i am female*, i am burdened *based on my sex*. it’s that simple. the majority says,

“[It] does not separate men and women into discrete classes for the purpose of granting to one class of persons benefits at the expense of the other class. Nor does the statue, facially or in its application, place men and women on an uneven playing field. Rather, the statue prohibits equally both men and women from the same conduct.”

but this is the truth: this reasoning only works if you ignore individuals. in marrying R the individual, men and women are indeed separated into discrete classes for the purposes of granting to one class (men) benefits (approval of a marriage license) at the expense of the other class (women). it does not prohibit “the same conduct” to men and women equally. it prohibits men from marrying a male individual, and women from marrying a female individual. those actions can never be “the same conduct” because the individual in question can never be *the same individual* for both a man AND a woman.

As I noted before, this is like saying banning interracial marriage is ok because both blacks and whites are equally prohibited from the same conduct. That reasoning just does not stand. What it does do is allow discrimination and hate to stand in for sound legal reasoning. Its the same kind of process you see when a creationist struggles to make their pre-stamped conclusion seem “sciency”. Let’s not pretend there was anything principled or just about the decision: These judges were, at best, homophobic and used the flimsiest of arguments to cover for what their opinion really said:

Equal rights don’t apply to Gays.

This is a failure of our justice system. Hate triumphed over reason. And for all the talk of “activist judges”, judges are supposed to uphold and protect rights. When judges strip them away they abandon their oath to administer justice and instead abuse the power of their seat.

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. Hey, thanks for reading and mentioning me!

  2. Karen,
    Sure thing, you have a most excellent blog. Especially Interesting frame about thinking of a “gay tax”.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: