Powerful Comment from Volokh Conspiracy

Eugene Volokh posed an interesting hypothetical about gay marriage.  The comments are amazing.  Homosexuals are put on the same level as drug dealers.  "Randy R." just body slams the bigots.  His comment is a must-read.  Here is the intro:

Love this thread. Finally, the real feelings come out in the wash. As I've always suspected, people aren't upset about [same-sex marriage], they aren't upset about judicial tyranny, and they aren't upset about gays adopting kids.

The only thing that upset them -- very greatly -- is the notion of homosexuality. 

To these people, all gays are on par with drug addicts, abusers, and the lowest levels of society. All other issues pale by comparison, and nothing, I mean NOTHING, will disabuse them of this notion. You simply can't talk to them, because they're hearts and minds are closed. Just try to tell them that there are good people who happen to be gay, and they will say no gays can be good people.

You know what: My mind is now closed on an issue.  I used to give people who opposed same-sex marriage the benefit of the doubt.  Many of my friends oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.  But I've seen the light. 

If you oppose same-sex marriage, you are a bigot.  I grew up around racists, and I know bigotry when I see it.  You may as well throw around the n-word so far as I'm concerned.  You're not different from a hateful racist who burns crosses into the night.

Sure, your interpretation of the Bible might support bigotry.  But guess what: Two-hundred years ago the popular interpretation of the Bible supported slavery.  And one-hundred years ago, the popular interpretation of the Bible supported segregation.  The popular interpretation of the Bible was wrong then.  And it's wrong now.

It's time to reflect: Does the Bible truly support your views?  Does Christ ever speak on the issue?  Or do you simply harbor a disdain for those who are different, and thus feel inspired to read words that are not even there?

I'm reminded of Thomas Jefferon's remarks on slavery: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!"

May God have mercy on your bigoted souls.

UPDATE: Steve Dillard disagrees. 

Comments

[Mahan Atma]

Great post.

What really exposes the bigotry of gay marriage opponents is the whole "protecting marriage" argument.

I have never, ever heard an even remotely convincing explanation for how gay marriage hurts marriage in general. The fact that people are willing to hinge their positions on this kind of intellectual dishonesty is mighty revealing.

[KipEsquire]

Thanks, Mike. =)

[derifter]

The apostle Paul spoke of homosexuality as though it were other than God's design, as does the Old Testament. Many people see homosexuality as immoral, for both religious and non-religious reasons, without spewing hate. If you told me that it's wrong of me to lie, I wouldn't assume that you hate me, only that you believe lying to be immoral. Same with incest. Would you say I'm a bigot because I think incest is immoral?

Peace to you, man.

[Aaron]

Although I "get" the Dillard-style "Love the sinner, hate the sin"-type argument, I believe people should spend more time worrying about their own souls and less about other people's. Further, by what sensible measure does a ban on gay marriage prevent gay relationships? If anything, it discourages stable relationships - whatever the nature of the relationship, under Christian philosophy aren't commitment and monogamy better for the soul than the alternatives?

Our goal then, must be to show homosexuals that the intimacy they seek can only be fulfilled by Jesus Christ, and to love them as Christ does.

Unless the argument is that homosexuals should become celibate monks and nuns, I'm missing something here. Because last I checked, my wife and I had an alternative to having our need for intimacy fulfilled by Jesus.

[Stephen]

"If you told me that it's wrong of me to lie, I wouldn't assume that you hate me, only that you believe lying to be immoral."

Right. And if my response was to vilify you, make lying illegal, make liars ineligible for marriage and adoption, and make you generally -- as a liar -- a social outcast, then you might assume that I hate you ...

[Stephen]

In my experience, anti-same-sex-marriage arguments boil down to the following: Teh Gay is disgusting; The Bible says it's wrong; gay people commit terrible, indecent crimes; legitimizing gays will lead to more gays, which will lead to the downfall of civilization (no more children!!); or it isn't "natural".

* Your disgust is irrelevant.

* The Bible is irrelevant (and besides, it doesn't really say what you think it says).

* The facts of the matter are that homosexuals are no more likely to commit crimes than heteros, and most child molesters are straight.

* People are born gay; they do not choose to be gay; you cannot "recruit" kids to be gay.

* Nature produced all of us, including homosexuals (and always has and always will), and there are homosexual animals in nearly all species.

[MLC]

Assume only for the sake of argument that being gay is a sin. Guess what: so are lots of other things: jealousy, lying, dishonoring your family, greed, meanness and (yes) being judgmental. And beating up on people who are marginalized is a big sin.

What the judg-ers fail to recognize is that the Bible does not grade sins. When it says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, "all" means 100%. If it's a sin to be gay, it is no better and no worse to commit the equal sin of judging a gay man to be sinful/deficient/etc. It is no better and no worse to commit the sin of accumulating more wealth than you'll ever need. It is no better and no worse to sleep with your heterosexual partner before marrying him or her.

Jesus didn't say anything about gays, and I don't know if He had any thoughts about gays that may not have made it into print. He did say to not be mean to each other, not judge and try to help. One has to read the Bible very, very, very selectively to find justification for treating gays any worse than any other sinner.

[derifter]

Mike, you may need to consider changing the name of your blog to Crime, Federalism, Homosexuality, and Religion!

[A Voice of Sanity]

Copied from GatorGSA - http://12reasons.com/

12 Reasons gay marriage will ruin the country.

Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.