Separate but equal? A red herring in the civil union debate…
This is an interesting editorial from the New York Times, defending the rights of gay couples to receive full, legal marriage instead of deciding on the true definition of civil unions. This editorial is trying to beckon the empathy and appeal for emotion, which detracts from the true issues at hand. It highlights the argument of a plaintiff representing several gay couples in Connecticut who are trying to be included in the state’s marriage laws. The argument is that granting gay couples a separate category is the same as was the outcome of the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case that set the standard of “separate but equal.†The parallelism seems to work, and it is difficult for any kind-hearted American who would scoff at the idea of racial segregation to not agree that it is impossible to have two categories that are “separate but equal.â€
The problem, however, is the inappropriate approach to the issue, which immediately falls apart upon logical consideration. The article skillfully uses emotional analogies to prove its point, but the debate over marriage should not be an emotional debate. The most fallacious sentence in the editorial is this one: “…forbidding marriages when one partner is the wrong gender still adds up to sex discrimination.†Riding the coattails of the lawyer’s comparison to racial segregation, this argument creates a situation where, if the underlying assumptions were true, it would be impossible for good-hearted people to disagree. The problem with that argument is that it detracts from the real issue, because the underlying assumptions aren’t true, yet it’s difficult to separate fact from fiction when it has been dragged through such a sticky emotional mess.
Ultimately the argument proves effective because the intended audience is those who are sympathetic to the “separate but equal†status to which gay couples in some states have been relegated, and who are only looking to find a feel-good solution, rather than pick through the sensitive topic to discover the true solution. This argument provides its audience with just the red herring needed to forget the underlying issue, which is the definition and purpose of marriage.
(Somewhat) Similar Posts:
A huge protest is being planned for Monday, during which millions of immigrants will boycott school, work, economic activity, etc. to support immigration, or to...From Milton Friedman, part of a series: ...To introduce the topic of labor unions, I think it best to begin with a small overview of them and their purpose. The following...News of chaos in Iraq is no longer a surprise to any of us. Reuters reported on some of the most recent unrest, and...