Fauxmentum

Jessica Garrison and Maura Dolan of the Los Angeles Times have another update on the march of the marriage neutering advocates, with a mention of what seems like a likely 2010 campaign in California.

As recently as a few months ago, some gay activists feared 2010 would be too soon. But the fact that same-sex marriage is now legal in five states, with New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire poised to follow, has changed the political climate, they say.

Yes, enough of those California voters who voted to affirm marriage are going to magically change their votes because there is marriage neutering in some other states. Evidently, these people haven't heard the question, "If a kid down the street jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?" And, when we're talking about voters, the neutering crowd is asking them to jump off a bridge because someone else pushed that other kid off the bridge. Yeah, that makes sense.

"There is no doubt we are witnessing an enormous and unprecedented sea change in both public opinion and momentum on the issue of marriage equality," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

These people clearly are among those who think they create reality through saying something enough - you know, like those people who think if they say they're going to get a huge luxury yacht enough times, it will magically come into their lives? At least, they are acting that way. Maybe they don't really believe their own hype.

[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]

More states have recently voted to affirm marriage. Guess what? Some states are different than others. There are examples of other states that have legalized something (doctors issuing prescriptions for fatal doses, medical marijuana use, prostitution, casino gambling, certain kinds of firearms and certain kinds of firearm use, sweepstakes... on and on) and legalization of that thing has not swept the nation to every state. It is wishful thinking, and they are trying to make people believe they are under peer pressure to go along with neutering marriage. The majority of Americans understand that marriage unites the sexes, so if peer pressure is at work here, it should work to affirm marriage.

"I believe the electorate nationally and in California is in a different place when it comes to marriage equality than it was six months ago."

Yes, but not in your favor, Kate. In California, a lot of people who didn't really care all that much have been convinced to come down on the side of affirming (bride-groom) marriage because of the behavior of homofascists.

The Connecticut Supreme Court in October decided to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Such language is deceptively passive. What these kinds of court decisions do is force the neutering of state marriage licensing, against the will of the represented. These couples have long be allowed to "wed".

"The more states that come on board, the more people in California wonder, 'What did we do here?' " said Marc Solomon, the newly hired marriage director for Equality California. "Are gay couples in Bangor, Maine, and Dubuque, Iowa, really going to be marrying when people in Pasadena can't?"

In some states, first cousins can marry each other. In other states, they can't. But you don't see a lot of people questioning why their laws in this respect aren't the same as other states. By his logic, more people in other states without a marriage amendment would be thinking, "Why don't we have a marriage amendment, like California?" It is false to paint this picture that there is some trend with all individuals and all states that is moving away from traditional marriage.

The article goes on to quote Jon Davidson, legal director for the gay and lesbian-rights group Lambda Legal:

"What a change, that there would be a controversy about a beauty pageant participant saying that she believed marriage should be between a man and woman," Davidson said.

Yes, it is strange that it would be controversial for her to state the very same position as the people of the state she represented, but the controversy doesn't represent any bigger shift than putting an annoying gossiper who is overly preoccupied with displaying his own homosexuality - and having people affirm his behavior or minority political opinion - on the judging panel. No gossip blogger on the panel, no controversy.

It is now way too clear to ignore – the marriage neutering advocates and their sympathetic media friends are trying to convince enough people that "everybody is doing it" and we should, too. Where were the newspaper articles questioning lawmakers in states without marriage amendments how soon they were likely to pass one, based on one passing in California or any of the dozens of other states that passed one? Or trying to convince the voters of those states that it was only a matter of time before their state goes the way of the states who have passed marriage amendments?

At the risk of being redundant, I'll close by pointing out that this article, like so many others, continues the common errors of using "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" interchangeably, and calling affirmations of marriage a "ban" on one or the other.