Sunday, February 15, 2009

There's No 'Redefinition' Involved

This article, , written by Orson Scott Card, was written a long time ago; however it’s still worth talking about. Now I think he's a good author, and has written some excellent books like Ender’s Game, but his political views on same sex marriage are quite simply, wrong. "The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America." Card wrote. How is gay marriage wrong? How could it be wrong to allow someone the basic right of marriage? The answer: it isn’t. As for ending democracy in America?! How is giving people equal rights, which is what America stands for, the end of democracy?! The end of democracy is the rejection of basic, constitutional rights. This is what Bush did, whom he supported, with his abolishment of habeas corpus. How can he justify this as the end of democracy when the president he supported worked actively to suppress it?!

“The pretext is that state constitutions require it -- but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years.” He argued. Again, his two points are quite wrong. The common argument against same sex marriage is because it’s ‘redefining’ marriage, yet its not. Gay marriage is in no way preventing, or changing, heterosexual marriage. And if there was no ‘redefinition’ of marriage there never would’ve been inter-racial marriages (as Jon Stewart pointed out). As for it being “unthinkable through all of human history” it is—ready for this?—wrong; Japan, Central Asia, and Greece had a long history of homosexuality and bisexuality.

Orson Scott Card wrote about unconstitutional limits on freedom of speech. His example is that people aren’t allowed to pray in front of abortion clinics. “Do not suppose for a moment that the "gay marriage" diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.” I suppose it is true that it’s unconstitutional that people aren’t allowed to pray in front of abortion clinics, it’s just obnoxious. I think this point is moot. What constitutional limitations are there, when the constitution specifies people have the right to liberty? Liberty is having the privilege to choose. That shows that not having the option of same sex marriage is undemocratic and unconstitutional. It implies that they are less than human, and don’t deserve the benefits of democracy live everybody else. As for intolerant?! How can he possibly say that the acceptation of gay marriage is intolerant? The rejection of gay marriage is intolerant.

“Remember how rapidly gay marriage has become a requirement.” Do I even have to go into this? Just because same sex marriage should be allowed doesn’t make it a requirement. People should have the right to choose how and who they want to marry.

“No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.” Who said anything about it being the same? Its different certainly, but that doesn’t make it bad. Passing a law to allow same sex marriage isn’t about making it the same. It’s about allowing couples the equal rights marriage brings for heterosexual couples.

Card talks about how being homosexual is having a ‘sexual dysfunction’. He also says he isn’t a homophobe, and that gay marriage wouldn’t work because there would be no offspring. He calls people dictators for trying to pass laws allowing gay marriage. I think these quotes from his article show he is definitely homophobic, and that he just doesn’t get it. Gay marriage does not stop heterosexual marriage, or change it in any way. This is what people against same sex marriage just don’t get.


  1. Card certainly is both wrong and incorrect. I hope he reads your blog. Temujin, when you mention that Japan, Central Asia, and Greece had a long history of homosexuality and bisexuality, do you mean it was accepted by the government, socially? I'm interested to hear more specifically what you're referring to. I'm guessing/assuming that every culture has more or less the same ratio of people with different innate sexual preferences, but that different cultures at different times have different rules, laws, expectations, judgements about behaviors.

  2. Well in Japan it was excepted by the government (the Samurai) since many of the government liked men and women, which was quite common and accepted. Many princes of Central Asia were bisexual, it became almost fashionable to be bisexual then.
    I know less about the situation in Greece, but from what I do know it seems the government accepted it.

  3. This was a great post. I, too, love the Ender books, but think that Card has some very strange views for someone who writes such seemingly advanced books, scientifically. I do, however, get the feeling that his religion may have something to do with it; I don't know what he practices, but the book "Children of the Mind" was fairly religious.

    I have always been for gay marriage. This is America; you can do what you want. Why does anybody care?