Olson The Intolerant
Ted Olson, opponent of California's Proposition 8, argued before the United States Supreme Court today that states can legislate against polygamy because "that is an issue of behavior." Homosexuality, on the other hand, is "an issue of identity."
Do you see just how discriminatory so-called same-sex "marriage" is?
There are plenty of polygamists and polyamorists, from backcountry Utah to the Muslim immigrant in New York City with his multiple wives to the suburban dude in the swinger's club, who might be a bit shocked and offended to learn that their feelings and proclivities are not "identities," but just deviant "behaviors." What happened to the "B" and "Q" in the ever-expanding acronym?
Where's the tolerance and love, dude?
Why are those sexual identities fundamentally different from that of a same-sex couple? They aren't. The same-sex couple has better lobbyists, celebrities, and TV shows. That is the difference, and the only difference.
In other words, you just heard Ted Olson discriminate and disenfranchise a group of people (a subset of the LGBTQ movement itself) based purely on... the "ick" factor. How fantastically ironic. And telling. Given how ludicrous and pathetic is Mr. Olson's attempt at distinguishing here, it should be obvious to anyone with ears to hear that the B and Q are just biding their time waiting patiently until the L, G, and T get their feet in the door.
Question: How long before Ted Olson's icky "behaviors" get clinically designated bona fide "identities" by some society of psychiatrists? Answer: before the ink dries on a Supreme Court decision affirming same-sex marriage. With laser printers, that's really fast.
Mr. Olson did us all a favor this morning. He clearly demonstrated that everybody, absolutely everybody, wants to draw sexual boundaries. And his favored group wants in on something they want to deny to others. In the name of being anti-discriminatory he wants laws every bit as discriminatory as the ones he opposes. The contradiction is so glaring I can only conclude that he doesn't really mean it when he wants to deny marriage to these other sexual arrangements. Either that, or he is naive in the extreme.
I've got a suggestion for drawing the legal boundaries that can sort of help us out of this quandary. It's really radical. How about, at a bare minimum, a legal marriage requires exactly one set of boy and girl parts?
I know. I must believe the world is flat, too.