Can’t think of a better illustration of the declining fortunes of the anti-same sex marriage movement than this “anti” argument from today’s New York Times profile of young anti-marriage equality activists:
“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity,” said Mr. Anderson, the Heritage Foundation fellow. “Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”
In the United States, monogomy, sexual exclusivity and permanency in relationships are already all optional. But what’s really absurd is that this is intended to be an “argument” against the state recognizing marriage rights for people who are seeking all three of those qualities in their own relationships. It’s not just that anti-marriage equality activists’ prescription (banning same-sex marriage) doesn’t solve the problems they say the want to fix, it’s that it actively undermines people who are seeking to uphold the very values anti-equality activists claim are precious to them.