Church Marriage, State Civil Union
It's time once again for the latest screed by the founder of the Non-Existent People's Liberation Front, Orson Scott Card.
Mr. Card insists that his own reason to live-- making sure his children give him grandchildren whether they want them or not-- is not chosen by his own priorities; rather, it's the only possible reason for anyone to live. (This, from someone who makes his income with his imagination?) Mr. Card appeals to a biological imperative to prompt his sympathizers to overthrow the government by any means because of gay marriage.
Amusingly, "biological imperative" is the sort of rationale I'd expect from a confused atheist who thinks survival of the fittest is a moral law. Just like the law of gravity makes hot air balloons immoral, right? Mr. Card is an authoritarian, for whom morality must be imposed in a straight line of royal succession from a single higher source. Eventually that sort gets around to inserting blind, remorseless biology into that authority chain, because God made it. Scratch the surface of a Dominionist and you find an inner nihilist.
suggests that the state should offer only civil unions, which confer civil benefits, and let marriage be what you get at your church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, unconnected to civil benefits. As I've been saying this for years, it's been interesting to discover how many others have as well. But should I have expected less from residents of what Mr. Card calls America's Smartland?
The strongest argument against it is that the voters would never pass it, which is what they said about gay marriage not too many decades ago. Give it time.
What few of us have realized is that the Orson Scott Card contingent will consider our proposal to be "the abolition of marriage." In their minds, the definition of marriage includes the state sanction on their set of values. You've seen it in every editorial Mr. Card has written on the topic. If the state no longer sanctions and enforces their values, marriage as they define it no longer exists. I often hear my friends ask, bewildered, "what threat does gay marriage pose to anyone?" Now you know. If the government doesn't treat their relationship style with special favor, by the Dominionist definition of marriage, they're not "married" anymore, because that favoritism is what marriage is to them.
Comments
amanda_lodden on Aug. 1, 2008 1:45 PM
Interesting. I always thought it was a question of semantics, where folks were arguing to protect "marriage" but didn't actually care about, say, "civil unions" (which were killed, ironically enough, by gay-marriage proponents who argues that they were the same as the "separate but equal" racial policies).
Still, there's got to be some way to quietly give rights to those currently denied them.
uplinktruck on Aug. 1, 2008 2:25 PM
So... Does that mean Orson Scott Card is still going to be vetoed as a Penguicon guest?
thefile on Aug. 1, 2008 2:48 PM
It might be fun to have him attend and see his head explode when he sees the attendees.
Then again, he might try to muster "America's SmartLand" against us. Trouble is, in MI, they'd get away with it.
matt-arnold on Aug. 1, 2008 3:15 PM
HAHAHAHAHA!
drew4096 on Aug. 2, 2008 3:30 AM
Where *is* Smartland, exactly?
Leave a Comment