In a recent piece on the Intellectual Conservative, Nicolas Jenkins argues that "Gay Marriages Would Violate Equal Protection." Now I like to think I'm an intellectual, since I do things like read the entire texts of court decisions, read and quote great figures of philosophy and criticism (Mill, Voltaire, Foucault, Barthes--here I was tempted to link to a bookseller, but I leave the plug for someone else). Using Mr. Jenkins as an example, all I really needed to do was to make some bad analogies.
Jenkins compares the struggle for same-sex marriage to two men entering a restaurant to order ice cream. (I'll leave aside his irrelevant racial overtones.) One guy orders and gets strawberry ice cream. The other orders mint ice, and when told the restaurant is out of mint ice cream, sues.
The problem with this analogy is... Well, let me just retell the story, and this time I'm going to bring in a blunt, binary view of sexuality. Yeah, it's "gay marriage" time, although I'm not sure what that means when two bisexuals of the opposite or same sex form a relationship.
Okay, two men walk into a retaurant, and they both order strawberry ice cream. The waitress says, "well, we have 3,000 years of supplying strawberry ice cream to straight people. We don't have anything for gay people. When the gay man devotes a big chunk of his life to securing equal rights, the waitress says, "well, it would still be wrong to give you strawberry, but I have some melted mint ice cream that I could think about letting you buy. It costs more, and it isn't as nice, but that's the best we can do."
That's the same sex marriage analogy.
Jenkins notes that gay people can already get married to members of the opposite sex, and notes that some indeed do. Here we get the argument that it's not fair, since no straight person would marry a same-sex partner. Yeah, well there's nothing enviable about gay people who marry opposite sex partners. Yes, you can marry without any concern for the well-being of your partner, using him or her as a shield against suspicions of of your true sexuality. It's a pretty pathetic life.
Jenkins then moves on to a variety of bad marriage choices that would be available if same-sex marriage became legal. These only add to the current choices under the opposite-sexes only scheme.
Jenkins returns to the ice cream theme, suggesting that if same-sex marriage became legal, then some would have the option of any sort of ice cream, while others could only have strawberry ice cream. Let me take this one step further. Some people get hives from strawberry ice cream. Gay people who marry persons of the opposite sex are going for the strawberry ice cream, because it's the only flavor offered. They get hives (so to speak) making their families miserable. It'd be much better if they could share their sundae with the right person to begin with.
This ice cream analogy really gets mushed and smeared when applied to extending marriage rights. Sure, same-sex couples should be allowed to get married (and I'm not ever going to ask what their orientations are). An analogy to ice cream, while less hysteric than the suggestion that people are going to marry dogs, is really not a valid analogy.
I expect better of someone who styles himself an intellectual.
