So the Supreme Court in America has announced that it going to rule on whether the right to same-sex marriage should apply to all states of America. The Attorney General, Eric Holder, said that the Justice Department will file a “friend of the court” brief, urging the Supreme Court to endorse marriage equality. He went on to say the following:
“It is time for our nation to take another critical step forward to ensure the fundamental equality of all Americans — no matter who they are, where they come from, or whom they love.”
Really? That’s pretty unequivocal. But does Mr Holder really believe his own criteria? Let’s put it to the test, bearing in mind that what constitutes marriage, according to the Holder criteria, is that it should be available for “all Americans, no matter who they are, where they come from, or whom they love.”
“Hi Mr Holder, my name is Andrew Harris, I’m 29 year old and I’m from New York. This is my sister, Belinda. We’re deeply in love and we hope one day to get married. Will you help us to overturn the current law in our state which prevents us from tying the knot?”
“Hello Mr Holder, Charlie Swanson from Virginia. I’m here today with my brother Donald whom I love and very much want to marry. We would love you to endorse our plans and help us achieve the fundamental equality that has been extended for other gay couples.”
“Edward Falls from Denver, Mr Holder. I’m here today with my wife Frances and my mistress Georgina. My wife, Frances, knows that I love her, but she also accepts that I love Georgina too. Would you endorse my attempts to change the state law of Colorado, giving me the fundamental equality currently denied me to take Georgina as my second wife?”
“My name is Harriet Williams. I’m 12 years old and I’m here today with my boyfriend, Ian who is 26. We’re deeply in love and want to get married, but my state won’t allow it. I feel my fundamental rights are being crushed and I would like to ask you, Mr Holder, given your views on marriage and fundamental equality, if you would help me get the law changed so I can marry the man I love.”
“Hi Eric. Mr name is James Kelsey and I come from Orlando. I’m 23 and came out as bisexual when I was 18. I have a boyfriend, Kevin and a girlfriend, Lou. I was in a relationship with Lou when I met Kevin. Lou and Kevin are not in a relationship, but both love me deeply. I would like to cement my love for them by marrying both. Would you help me?”
I realise that there was probably a lot of hate speech in all that, and how dare I suggest some kind of equivalence between a gay or lesbian couple that love each other very much, and the brother and sister, the brother and brother, the wannabe bigamist, the underage girl and the paedophile? Well actually it was Mr Holder who really made that suggestion, not me. All I have done is to flesh out the logic of his position a little. He did say all Americans didn’t he? He did say no matter who they were didn’t he? He did say no matter where they come from didn’t he? And he did say no matter who they love, didn’t he?
Well that would include Andrew and Belinda, wouldn’t it? That would include Charlie and Donald, wouldn’t it? That would include Edward, Frances and Georgina, wouldn’t it? That would include Harriet and Ian, wouldn’t it? As for James, Kevin and Lou, I’ll come back to them in a moment.
The issue here is what you base your view of marriage on. If you use Jesus’ words — “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” — then it is obvious why none of the above configurations, along with ordinary same-sex unions, can never be called marriage.
But if you really want to base your view of marriage on what Mr Holder calls “fundamental equality,” and if you claim that this should extend to “all Americans, regardless of who they are, where they come from and who they love,” then either you are going to have to accept all of the above configurations, or you are going to have to be prepared to be labelled — and I use the technical term here — a raving hypocrite.
I said I would come back to James, Kevin and Lou. They too fall within Mr Holder’s criteria, but they are a bit different. Why? Well I’m guessing that even so much as mentioning all the other configurations is likely to go down as hate speech in the eyes of every LGBTer and their supporters out there, but when we come to James, Kevin and Lou it all gets a little bit tricky. You see, James is bisexual and bisexuality is one of the key planks of the whole LGBT movement. Which means that if you are going to argue for marriage to be offered to the “L’s”, the “Gs” and the “Ts”, why won’t you offer it to the “Bs”? You’re not Bi-ophobic now, are you?
Of course the reply may well be along the lines that by bringing in same-sex marriage, the “Bs” are able to marry who they want, which means that James is free to marry both Kevin or Lou. But the problem is James doesn’t want to marry Kevin or Lou. He wants to marry Kevin and Lou.
Do you hear that Mr Holder? James is an American, he is from Orlando, he is in love with both Kevin and Lou, and he wants to marry them both. He comes into all the criteria you have set out regarding marriage, as do all the other configurations mentioned above. So do you think we should respect the principle of “fundamental equality” and grant James his request. Or would this be a critical step too far for you?