February 27, 2004
-
Ok, I’m disappointed, to say the least.
Orson Scott Card wrote a column in, well, I guess it’s his web-zine ‘blog thing, where he comes down hard on the gay marriage issue. Here’s a link to it.
He says things like this:
And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for “hate speech.” The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a “homophobe” and therefore mentally ill.
I’m terribly disappointed, because his novels always seemed to have something straightforward and commonsensical to say. Now, however, he’s doing the wounded reactionary conservative dance.
As in:
So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.
In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of “marriage” to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.
…which is utterly wrong. Gays have been getting hitched and committing to their relationships to each other since there have been gay relationships. And Orson, that’s not just this generation, ya cutie pie.
But gays who wish to be legally married are discriminated against, in that there are quite a few benefits to being married in the eyes of the law. Not the least of which is that you can get into your partner’s hospital room in the event of an accident, or not being forced to testify against them in a trial.
These things are ensconsed in law, and they make sense. It makes sense that someone’s life partner should be with them when they’re ill, right? So such laws aren’t the problem. The problem is that all life partners should have such legal protection, because of this little thing called the United States Constitution. Here, let’s ask the Constitution to weigh in on the matter:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
‘Equal protection of the laws.’ Seems pretty reasonable to me. Doesn’t seem reasonable to Orson Scott Card, which is why I have ceased to respect him as of now.
Comments (6)
You should send his the transcript of this blog, word for word. Seriously. It spells it all out. And, who knows, he might actually respond. (I’ve had writers respond to random letters from ME, on various occasions.)
And you’re right. Gays HAVE been commiting themselves to one another throughout history. This is nothing new here. I suppose he feels that we should be HAPPY that they aren’t STONED TO DEATH for their actions, and quit yammering about “marital benefits”…
Sigh.
Such ignorance.
yuck. i’m really disappointed in him as well.
yuck yuck
Femme: Card’s argument basically boils down to one of definition. He says there’s no such thing as gay marriage because there’s no kind of marriage that can happen between gay people. In the bit quoted above, he emphasises this by saying that gays can get married by finding someone of another gender besides their real partner to marry.
In other words: To Orson Scott Card, love and committment are not part of the definition of marriage. Those ideas are trumped by what kind of child-making capacity is present.
I can’t help but think that Ender might disagree with him.
You’re right — this IS disappointing.
For the sake of equality, all marriage should be outllawed.
The only thing I got from the article is that he could have said the same thing in a hell of a lot less text. But that’s been my long standing complaint re: Mr. Card’s writing.
In the follow-up piece that OSC added to the bottom of the article after he got lots of mail, he seems to be focusing more on the issue of “judicial activism” vs “the democratic process” re: gay marriages.
Which is one thing I will agree with him on, a preference for the democratic process over judicial activism, irrespective of my beliefs on the specific issue.
Comments are closed.