I have struggled quite a bit with this rebuttal because as a member of the Hellac Bar the issue appears to be such a clearly straightforward matter of civil rights that to argue against it causes me to wonder about the mental ability of those that oppose same sex marriage. Mark Noonan begins his explanation on his views of this matter this way:
My views are as follows:
1. Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege assigned by society to some people in order that both our species and our civilization may be effectively propagated in to the next generation. This privilege has heretofore in our society only been assigned to one man and one woman who are of age, not closely related biologically and not encumbered by any previous marital commitment. Whether or not we’ll alter this is not a matter of human rights.
From the outset Noonan devolves into fallacy for marriage is a right and has been held to be so in the United States of America for quite some time just as it is here in Hell. Of course, no one has to take the word of a demon journalist that this is true so I will simply quote the opinion of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the case of Loving v Virginia [ 388 U.S. 1, 1967 ]
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma,[ 316 U.S. 535, 541 1942 ]. See also Maynard v. Hill, [ 125 U.S. 190 1888 ].
That decision, in the face of all the tidal forces of the times that demanded the races be kept apart from this right for both political and religious reasons, destroys the notion that any of those reasons weight more on the scales of Justice than the rights of the party petitioning. Noonan’s views on this simple fact of civil rights are clouded because he feels his particular brand of morality and religious belief outweighs the constitution of the United States and the decisions of the Supreme Court. They do not and cannot because the United States of America is a nation of laws not a nation that must abide by the religious beliefs of any man, or group of men.
On the alternation of what marriage can be is certainly a matter of Human Rights as it was for the Lovings it will be for same sex couples.
2. Same sex marriage, so called, bears as much resemblance to traditional marriage as plowing a field does to horse racing. They both might have horses involved, but the activities are fundamentally different…the results are not at all the same. Of nature, a traditional marriage will do what marriage is supposed to do – form a socio-biological unit which will naturally produce children and raise them up. Same sex marriage will not of nature do this. Same sex marriage and traditional marriage are not the same thing and to call them the same thing is, to put it bluntly, to lie.
A bad analogy to start this expose into the beliefs of Mark Noonan. First off, same sex marriage resembles “traditional” marriage exactly with the only difference being that the parties that enter the union happen to be of the same sex. Noonan, a man who married so late in life as not to be able to meet his own definition of marriage is willing to cast himself as a hypocrite in a feeble attempt to seek a moral high ground on the issue and fails. Just recently there was a Time Magazine cover story regarding marriage written by one of my favorite writers Lauren Sandler entitled, “The Childfree Life.” By Noonan’s definitions, by the very words he writes and says are his beliefs, the fundament of marriage is to “naturally produce children and raise them up.” This would disqualify for marriage all couples that cannot have children biologically or like those in Sandler’s article choose not to have children. From this poor, hypocritical, place of reasoning Mark Noonan finally gets to the point of his views why same sex marriage is not really marriage. He calls any such comparisons a lie. Mark Noonan, a man rescued from his own addictions by drowning them in Catholic dogma, has settled it in his heart that a civil right must be a lie because it goes against the teachings of a Church that was his last chance at rescue from a lonely life of masturbating to pornography. I would point out to Mr Noonan that the rights of millions of Americans are more important to me, a demon, than they are to him, a man who took refuge in pornography due to his lack of ability to attract a warm sexually willing partner.
3. The fundamental problem, then, for same-sex marriage as it relates to me is that it is a lie – it is untrue that a same-sex marriage is just the same as a traditional marriage and so assigning to a same-sex union the same benefits we provide to traditional marriage (benefits which cost me, as a member of society) is to force me to be complicit in a lie. While I have lied in my life – being a sinner, you see? – it is not for me to go along with something which I know to be a lie from the get-go. Just because I have done wrong at some points in my life it doesn’t follow that it is ok for me to deliberately do something wrong elsewhere. I cannot agree to legal same-sex marriage because I cannot agree to be untrue.
I find my horns aching at the reading of this. However I am well trained in both Reason and Rhetoric and I will attempt to remain civil in the face of such a farcical attempt to make a basic civil right into a falsehood. For clarification purposes let us take a moment and define just what a lie is.
A lie is defined as, “a false statement made with deliberate attempt to deceive. Something intended or serving to convey a false impression. An inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.” A marriage between two men or two women is not a lie; there is simply nothing false about it and despite Noonan’s anger it is and does exist in his plane of reality just as it does here in Dis. Yes, yes, I get that this is drifting toward religion and Noonan’s personal religious beliefs [which of course he feels are under "attack" because I am writing in-counter to his beliefs and hopefully expressing myself well in a tongue that is not native to me] as he admits that he is a sinner [how gracious!] I still am dumbfounded by why this has anything to do with granting a basic civil right to two consenting adults?
4. The secondary problem for same-sex marriage as it relates to me is that even if I can avoid participating – by act or omission – in the lie, I am still under threat because when a lie is foisted upon the people by government fiat then the only way that lie may be sustained in the long run is by repressive measures. We already see it in Europe and Canada where same sex marriage has been legal for some time: activists seeking to fine and/or jail those members of those societies who dissent from the lie and assert what they believe to be true about same-sex marriage: that it is an inherently disordered action. Same sex marriage was recently legalized in Britain, for instance, with an exemption for churches – they don’t have to perform same sex weddings. But already the activists who managed to get the legalization through are working on forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings. It is very much a slippery slope.
Though he tiptoes around the matter a bit this is about Mark Noonan and those who hold similar religious views are being threatened by the very existence of same sex marriage. many in the middle of the last century in America made similar arguments about interracial marriage. These people are not pious or patriots–they are bigots.
5. Given all of this, I have come to the conclusion that the best course of action is to separate Marriage and State. All State licensing of marriage is to cease – apply the tax benefits accruing to marriage to children (this way, even a same-sex couple with children will obtain the same tax benefits as anyone else with children), but leave marriage entirely alone. This is made an extra strong conviction in me when I realize that the destruction of marriage is my fault – mine and so many Christians like me who for so many years lived as practical pagans. It is no fault of gay people when they want gay marriage after we Christians spent so many years gutting marriage with divorce, adultery, birth control, in-vitro fertilization and other anti-human horrors. Adding an extra bit of zest in this is the final realization that State licensing of marriages is actually a degradation of marriage…calling the transient State to some how “sanctify” what God has joined together. Absurd! Make marriage a legally non-binding activity and there is no grounds for anyone to complain about what particular ceremonies any religion does to solemnize any union, at all. We can all go our separate ways on the matter with no one offending anyone else. An added benefit is that we’ll throw divorce lawyers out of work.
I am nearly at a loss for words after reading this for what feels liken the one hundredth time. There was little thought on the part of Mr Noonan put into the reasoning of this last bit of theocratic nonsense. In my very sensitive ears it sounds like, “If the marriage I gave up pornography for is not seen as special because I say it is a gift given to me by the deity I worship then no one can be married at all!” That sort of “reasoning” is the most absurd bit of blather I have encountered in quite some time.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
Cavalor Epþiþ, Esquire, O.B.R.E., CS, O.D.A.J.[1er], O.Q.H.[Journ.], D.S.V.J., J.F.
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
99 Colnu 2 AS