Leibniz, Texas and Gay Marriage

This is mildly hilarious:  ‘Texas’ Gay Marriage Ban May Have Banned All Marriages’.  It turns out that a failure to appreciate the nature of identity might have resulted in the banning of all marriages in Texas, not just the pesky gay ones.  Here’s the relevant bit of the article:

‘The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman”.  But the troublemaking phrase…is Subsection B, which declares:  “This state or political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage”‘

Whoops.  (And, strictly speaking, even without the identity trouble, it might also mean that you can have at most one married couple in the entire state.  Don’t get me started on ‘all’ in the headline.)

I thought for a moment that I should find out what the fuss is really all about.  Why would a state vote ‘overwhelmingly’ against gay marriage?  Who cares what consenting grown ups do with a willing priest?  Is there something more to it than prejudice?  I Googled ‘arguments against gay marriage’ and spent a very short moment of my life, a moment I will never get back, reading some very silly claims about what’s natural and two examples of the slippery slope fallacy which I’ll keep in case I ever teach logic again.  Satan was mentioned a lot — I can’t recall the last time someone mentioned Satan to me.  Is this all there is to opposition to same sex marriage?  Did I miss a really good argument somewhere?

Leave a Comment


NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>