And then the Wave of Similitude

Well, Marcus Ross today opened his student paper to discover something that brings back memories of my own time at his university: a unanimous cry that he's wrong. Some letters poorly written. Some hilarious. One from a professor. Marcus ought, of course, to be allowed the learning experience of juggling these various tints of monochrome minds; if he intends to remain in the Northeast and to proudly wear the label of "conservative," he'll need the experience.

But I can't resist dipping in.

First up is Katie Block, who writes from the broadly researched position of one who has interviewed her friends on the matter:

In recent days I have walked around the University of Rhode Island campus talking to people I know about gay marriage. Everyone I have talked to has simply said that homosexuals should have the right to marry, it just makes sense.

Such are the critical thinking skills of the acquaintances of a member of Students for Social Change. Well, yes, I suppose that, if one's defining cause is "social change," then redefining marriage does, indeed, "just make sense." Of course, if Ms. Block wishes to further her personal cause of making sense, I'd suggest that she spend some time researching Constitutional law:

My answer to this is that as far as I can remember there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. Therefore, this amendment President Bush wants to put in which defines marriage is unconstitutional in itself. Marriage has no place in the Constitution if it is taken as a religious entity. The government has no right to define marriage. It does, however, have the obligation to uphold the Constitution which, if I remember correctly, says that all men are created equal.

Alright. Maybe it would be a bit ambitious for her to begin with Constitutional law, because one would presume that such studies require some knowledge of what's actually in the Constitution. That stuff about all men being created equal is in the Declaration of Independence. Moreover, specifically speaking, the Establishment Clause, debatably rendered as "separation of church and state," is in the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments to the Constitution, following which are the other amendments. All of these amendments are, by definition, "constitutional," and since the Federal Marriage Amendment would go at the end of that list, it, too, would acquire that adjective.

With this as a foundation, perhaps Ms. Block could begin pondering such questions as:

• If the government has no right to define marriage, why are activists appealing to it to redefine the institution?
• And how can a young woman devoted to "social change" consider a document written hundreds of years ago to be immutable?

Once these points are considered, perhaps she can move on to the next level of profundity:

• Whom does she believe created men so equally?
• And wasn't Mr. Ross's central complaint about gay marriage that men are created just a bit too equally to be complementary parents?

After all of this hard learning and deep thinking, it might be healthy to inject a bit of levity into the debate. For this, we turn to Keri Mirkovich, who begins:

Marcus Ross, in his recent opinion of the regulation of same-sex marriages, made the same mistake as every other pundit trying to push for the abolishment of gay marriage: assuming that he could truly understand the other side of the argument.

Of course, one could get bogged down in taking offense at the blithe declaration that opponents of gay marriage are just too dumb to understand the minds of its supporters. But let's move along to the very next line, which couldn't have been written better by even our side's least-dumb parodist:

The only argument against gay marriage is religious. Period.

As it happens, in the twisting of things, Ms. Mirkovich concludes by making a superb argument for a Constitutional amendment:

The Supreme Court should be brought this issue as soon as possible so that finally this matter can be settled.

Lastly, we come to the smashing of Ross's "ill-reasoned recent publication" by Library and Political Science Professor Olivier Vocino. Quothe the professor:

Marcus wrote, "What's to stop a 42-year-old man from "marrying" his 15-year-old boyfriend?" The law, Marcus, would stop such a silly thing.

Oh silly Marcus. Of course, the law currently stops homosexuals from marrying, and the basis for the law is precisely what Ross was addressing:

If the definition of marriage is to be so radically altered, as the gay community argues it should, then we as a society require rigorous justification for that change, as well as an understanding of what the new boundaries will be. If the reasoning for allowing same-sex marriage is "because I love them and they love me" coupled with "it isn't fair otherwise" then this is shoddy reasoning indeed. How can this protect our society from truly egregious behavior such as incest and molestation (where minors could be pressured to affirm consent) without appealing to something entirely arbitrary? What's to stop a 42-year-old man from "marrying" his 15-year-old boyfriend?

Rather than researching age-of-consent laws, Prof. Vocino might have better spent his time rereading young Marcus's piece. He's asking about reasoning, not mechanism. At least Cheryl Jacques, of the Human Rights Campaign, got that far when she gave the reason, "Because I don't approve of that."

The professor swings and misses, again:

Or, Marcus, you also said, "If the reasoning for allowing same-sex marriage is 'because I love them and they love me'....is 'shoddy reasoning.'" I'd like to know why heterosexuals marry. It can't because they love each other....I assume you think that is "shoddy reasoning," too.

To the text, Professor! Ross referenced "the reasoning for allowing," not the reason that they would want to be allowed. Ben Franklin may have been correct to quip that "a reasonable Creature" is capable of creating a reason for anything he "has a mind to do," but even that venerable statesman, whose name Ms. Block will find when she peruses the Constitution, left open the reasoning his fellow citizens ought to apply to the question of allowing it. (Although he did move to open each session of the Constitutional convention with a prayer for God's illumination on the obscurity of "political truth.")

For my part, I'll leave it to Mr. Ross to discern what "real issue" Prof. Vocino might present for "good conservatives to be concerned with."