Orson Scott Card makes an ass of himself. Again.

[piasharn]

Some things never change. A recent article by Orson Scott Card claims that the government does not have the right to redefine marriage. He also believes that the decisions in MA and CA to legalize same-sex marriage represent "the end of democracy in America."

I wonder, if Proposition 8 (which would amend the CA state constitution to define marriage as only being between a man and a woman) is voted down in November by the people, will he still be making that claim?

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

Yes, CA did vote against same-sex marriage eight years ago. However, there are a couple of points that need to be made. The first is that the attitudes of the people can and do change. Just because the people voted one way in the past does not mean that they would do so now.

For some people, they support a certain point of view because that is what they were taught. Sometimes, something happens that makes them change their mind. Take this story for example:

Renee DeMusiak, 52, the florist shop employee, grew up with the idea that marriage meant only a man and a woman. "I just always went by the Bible. Mom is mom and dad is dad. I was never really for gays getting married," she says. But in November, she plans to vote against the ban and for same-sex marriage. She had only worked at Chase Flower Shop for two months when her dog got sick and needed expensive medical care. "Michael gave me his credit card and told me to take care of her," she says. "I'd never vote against him." She says her own search for a mate has been the stuff of blues songs: cheating men, hurt, and true love never arriving. "I'm struggling to find someone. I see gay couples come in here all the time who have had better luck than me. It's so important to have someone love you for who and what you truly are," she says. "I know religion is really going to come down on this one, but I just don't think I can be opposed any more. I vote for people to be happy."

I also think that Schwarzenegger made an excellent point when the CA Supreme Court made the decision. Here's what he said when the decision was made back in May:

"When the people vote, people are not legal experts, constitutional experts or any of that," he said. "I think that's why we have the courts. People may vote with good intentions, but then the court says, 'This is not constitutional.' "It's not that the court interferes with the will of the people," he added. "But the court says, 'You voted for something, but it's not constitutionally right, so let's rework this.' That’s really the idea."

The different branches of the government exist for a reason. They serve as checks and balances for each other. The CA Supreme Court overturning Proposition 22 doesn't signify the death knell for the US government; it shows that it is working. We have the courts for a reason. Like the Govenator pointed out, the average person is not an expert on the law or the Constitution.

And perhaps someone who is a bit more savvy in this area can correct me, but I was always told that the US is not a democracy; it's a republic. (A democratic republic or a constitutional republic or something like that, but a republic nonetheless.) I also seem to remember hearing that part of the purpose of the US government is to protect the minority from the majority.

After all, I don't remember that Lincoln was following the wishes of most US citizens when he ended slavery.

Getting back to Card's article:

The pretext is that state constitutions require it -- but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years. And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction.

Really? All societies throughout the entirety of human history have been unanimous in their definition of marriage? I'll admit that I'm not a history buff, but I could swear that the ancient Romans had a different view on marriage than the ancient Egyptians, who had a different view than the Pre-Columbian tribes in North America, who had a different view than Middle Eastern tribes in Biblical times...

And do I really need to point out (again) that there were societies that allowed same-sex marriage?

I could also swear that, even within a particular culture, the definition has fluctuated greatly over time. My parents got married because they were in love. My great-grandparents got married because their families arranged the union. Both marriages occurred here in the US. Neither my great-grandparents, nor their friends and family, considered an arranged marriage to be unusual. However, I doubt that many people currently living in the US would consider an arranged marriage to be acceptable, much less normal.

Here's the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

If Card truly believes that the government cannot (or should not) redefine marriage, then does that mean he believes we should eliminate all of the changes made to the definition? After all, when this country was founded, Marriage = One White Man + One White Woman.

So I suppose that all the non-Caucasian couples out there can forget about having a legal union. The same goes for interracial couples. To be really true to the traditional definition of marriage, we probably ought to eliminate all those laws that allow a woman to vote and own property or a bank account in her own name. Plus, we need to go back to when it was legal for a man to beat and rape his wife.

Most of the arguments Card makes seem to be vague at best. He seems to think that if same-sex marriage is legalized, parents will be forced to sit by and do nothing while schools teach their children that it is normal. I've never understood the attitude that simply acknowledging that GLBT people and same-sex couples exist is a huge threat. Just because you know it exists doesn't mean you have to approve, after all. But I don't see why parents won't be able to home-school their children or send them to a private school if they disagree with the curriculum at the public schools.

Card whines about the term "homophobe" and how it is applied. Namely, the use of the root word "phobia" which means "an irrational fear" and is often used in mental health issues. While I agree that not all people who the term is applied to are fearful (some of them are ignorant and some of them are just hateful), I can't help but get a sense of fear from his article. The whole thing appears to be trying to terrify the reader with "What if?" scenarios and a general attitude of "OMG!! TEH SKY IS FALLING!!1! GAY PEPPLZ IZ MAKING CIVILIZASHUN COLLAPS!!!one!"

He then veers off into ideas about how marriage used to really mean something and the evils of divorce. He seems to have this idealized view of "traditional" marriages and appears to think that adultery didn't happen all the time in the past, and that women stayed with their husbands out of loyalty rather than because they had no other options.

There's also a bit about biology in there which seems to imply that marriage is all about having children. He seems to anticipate that some people will point out that there are plenty of heterosexual couples who do not (whether by choice or inability) have children and brushes this off with the idea that "...their faithful marriage still affirms, in the eyes of other people's children, the universality of the pattern of marriage." (Whatever that means.) He also comments that couples that adopt "... affirm the pattern of marriage and generously confer its blessings on children who might otherwise have been deprived of its benefits."

However, he completely ignores the fact that gay people can, and do, have children. And that same-sex couples frequently do adopt.

I will give him credit for one thing, though. He does acknowledge that heterosexuals have done more than their fair share to screw up marriages in this country; that we can't blame the high divorce rates or out-of-wedlock births on GLBT people. Still, that's the only good thing I could find.

Near the end is something that I find a bit creepy:

Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it seems to imply that same-sex marriage is such a huge threat that, if it is legalized, people who oppose it should actually overthrow the government.

Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life? If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

Er... remind me again how legalized same-sex marriage will interfere with your life?

Oh, and apparently legalized same-sex marriage also means that the government can take your kids away and brainwash them! Seriously. This is the same guy who complained about the term "homophobic" earlier. Because there's obviously no "irrational fear" here. Nope. Not at all. This is the very epitome of calm, rational reasoning!

To sum things up for those who don't feel like reading the article or my rant on it, Card's beliefs seem to be as follows:

MARRIGE = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN ADN THATZ TEH ONLY DEFINISHUN TAHT HAZ EVUR EXISTD!! TEH GOVRERMET CANT CHANGE IT!!! IF IT DUZ THEN THEY WILL ABDUCT UR KIDZ AND TEACH TEHM THAT ITZ OK 2 B GHAY!!!1! OH NOES!!!1one!!

All right, so he didn't actually write it in lolspeak. A pity, it might have made more sense if he had.

ETA: Didn't come across this response to Card's article until after I had written mine. This one's better written and brings up some interesting points that I missed.