Back in July the Twin Cities Blog (a blog for the local Sentinel & Enterprise newspaper serving Fitchburg, Leominster, and the surrounding communities) posted a simple question...

Do you think state lawmakers should vote to ban same-sex marriage?

As you can imagine this drew a lot of commentary.  And as usual, I was disgusted with how many people in my area want to take rights away from a minority group.  Have we learned nothing?  I couldn't be bothered to comment on it at the time as it would have just gotten me too riled.  But one irritating comment stood out:

Homosexuals ARE equal under the law. They may marry whom ever they want. Just not someone of the same gender. Period.

About 2 years ago I summarized 16 common arguments against gay marriage here on ULev.  That post was largely edited from many lengthy comments I posted on Aces Full of Links' immortal article "Top Twelve Reasons Against Gay Marriage" back in February of 2004.  At the time I never bothered to cover the argument offered above, but it is an argument I've heard repeatedly both before and since.  And I'm sick of it, because it betrays the same double standard and lack of insight that so many of the standard arguments do.  So, here's a brief refutation of this argument against Gay Marriage.

Imagine that tomorrow, the marriage laws of our nation suddenly changed as follows: marriage is only defined as a union between two people of the same gender.

In that case, heterosexuals would be able to marry whomever they wanted.  Just not someone of the opposite gender.  Period.

Would you then be so hot to declare that heterosexuals are equal under the law?  Or would you be fighting tooth and nail to get the right to marry the person you loved, regardless of their gender?  You and I both know the answer to that (which is a nice way of saying you're not fooling anybody).

If you were really concerned about equality, you wouldn't be presenting this argument, which means you're concerned about something else, and doing a very poor job of hiding it behind this flimsy argument.  These are basic rights of our fellow citizens we're talking about here.  It is extremely inappropriate of you to argue semantics, especially when you wouldn't hold the position if the situation were reversed.

Regarding other arguments against gay marriage, I've devoted a new page to summarizing the problems with these arguments. It's all stuff you've heard me say before, but do look it over and let me know what you think. Are there any arguments you've heard that I haven't included? Am I just plum wrong?