Wednesday, May 9, 2012

North Carolina, Same-sex Marriage and the Accusation of Hate

North Carolina has become the last southern state to add a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  Included in the measure is an additional ban on same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships.  Regardless of where you stand on the issue, a troubling trend has continued: the accusation of hate.

Think of it this way.  Most of us agree that drugs, such as heroin, should remain illegal.  Does this mean opponents to heroin-legalization hate drug addicts?  Or, is it rather the case that they have a legitimate point about the health-deteriorating effects of the drug?  I'm much more inclined to think the latter.

Note: I'm not comparing homosexuals to drug addicts.  My point is simply that the accusation of hate is based upon some flawed logic.


  1. Of course. These folk are virtually guaranteed to flub logic, since for them, the word "hate" (like "racist") is employed simultaneously as a mental shield and as a plastic semantic bludgeoning tool. And, if you ask them to define it, they can't. Feelings, not truth, is of primary concern to them.

    (On a side note, the additional ban on unions and partnerships did strike me as a bit gratuitous)

  2. (On a side note, the additional ban on unions and partnerships did strike me as a bit gratuitous)

    There was a time - a fairly recent time - where I would have agreed with this point. No longer.

    I think it's now clear that any talk of civil unions is purely meant to be taken in a tactical way. As in, the cultural forces that push for SSM don't want civil unions, and see CUs only purpose as to act as a precursor to SSM. For any opponent of SSM who sees that, there's a reason to oppose CUs.

    Once upon a time I could have said, "Well, even if there's a reason to oppose it, that's a reason to oppose it morally and culturally. Not necessarily legally. We can't treat the law as one more battleground in a culture war fight." No longer. Not when Dan Savage can say what he does, and the supposed 'moderates' on the SSM side defend him, because they want to see that sort of bullying be even more mainstream than it is.

  3. If it weren't for the fact that it seems a bit of a slippery slope, I wouldn't have a huge issue with the civil union part. My moral issues with homosexuality aside, it would seem to be the ideal middle ground, and thus would, in a rational world, somewhat solve the problem. The thing is, as Crude so aptly pointed out, it's likely to be taken as a foot in the door by the aggressive lobbyists. Whatever the feelings of LGBT people on the whole may or may not be, there are people among them who have both connections and an adamant agenda. That's a dangerous combination, no matter how you look at it. It's entirely too complicated an issue to be solved by the statements of a governor, a legislator or a president. Legally, that is. Morally, the yes/no part of it is simple, but the application is a little more tricky with those who don't share the same starting assumptions as you.