More Internicine Sniping With the Board of The Rhetorical Situation (And, Happy Birthday Solon!)

Recently, O Readers, Harrogate's Pulitzer-Prize Winning Colleague, Solon, opined the following:

There may be perfectly good reasons why even a homosexual would reject same-sex marriage specially if it were sought through the judiciary rather than the legislative process.

Now first of all, let Harrogate make clear his position that what is happening with Larry Craig goes well beyond the question of whether homosexuals ought to be able to get married. The Thunder Mug case is functioning as a revelation about the ridiculousness of the "Values Voter" myth. It is one of many examples of why these holier-than-thou fire-eating panderers deserve to be ridiculed at every turn. This is what the Thunder Mug case is all about, it's about always taking advantage of opportunities to undermine the vacuous, dangerous rhetoric that the GOP used so effectively in 2004. But that aside, let us take a look at Solon's statement and engage it on its own terms.

Harrogate, famous for trolling Right Wing media on television and the Internet alike, is deeply familiar with the Talking Points Solon is invoking. And he must say, there have been moments where he has felt almost compelled to join Solon in actually taking this argument seriously. But in the end, right at the moment when he's about to take the bait, Harrogate always finds himself cut short by ruminations such as these:

1)Since 2004 gay marriage has been the hot-button symbolic loadstone for the gay rights debate. Yet just a few moments spent listening to Republican lawmakers and/or the people who vote for them will show you that the gay marriage "debate" is only the current cover from which people can safely bash homosexuality without seeming bigoted.

Simply google Lawrence v Texas to see why Harrogate conservatively ventures that 85% of those currently opposed to gay marriage would bring back the sodomy laws (only overturned in 2003!) in a hearbeat if they could: which they can, by the way, with only one more Supreme.

2)The much-trumpeted worry over the judiciary trumping the democratic process vis a vis gay marriage makes some sense at first glance. That is, until you stop and consider the presupposition scaffolding this argument: that it is right and proper that civil rights be put to a vote.

But there is such a thing as minority rights. And Harrogate would like to see the Courts protect minority rights, especially in the face of a hostile majority.


3)Does anybody actually know a practicing homosexual who opposes gay marriage? Harrogate doesn't, nor has he seen one speak out to this effect. This doesn't mean there are none. Far be it from Harrogate to be so petty as to foundationally rest his argument upon the whims of anecdote. Yet Harrogate would suggest that, excluding Solon and a precious few others, when you hear the canard, "it's possible to be gay and still oppose gay marriage," you can pretty well safely bet the farm that the person making this claim is heterosexual, hostile to gay rights generally, and a GOP supporter.