Writing an OpEd piece for USA Today, Sen. Santorum continues with the foot up his a-hole routine by claiming that marriage other than that between a man and a woman is wrong: “[I]t’s just common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.” (Santorum’s original claim to fame was briefly mentioned here before.) However, it’s Santorum who’s wrong, trying to make an argument based on his religious beliefs without bringing religion explicitly in the argument.
As if that matters, that people can’t see right through his poorly formulated logic. The Pennsylvania Republican marshals his arguments completely on why society recognizes and gives special legal meaning to marriages, and none of those arguments seem particularly farfetched, but he leaves one weak assertion–a Jenga piece left hanging too far out–at the base of his rhetoric and once that piece is pulled out, the whole pile crumbles. Just how is it “common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman”?
True, for as long as there’s been recorded history marriage has been between a man and a woman. Except for certain groups, such as the Mormons, that practiced polygamy; I expect that if I searched enough I’d find examples of societies that practiced group marriage or multiple husband/single wife systems as well. Just because it’s been that way doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. Otherwise we’d still have slavery and shtetls, not to mention laws against miscegenation.
Santorum further writes that “There is an ocean of empirical data showing that the union between a man and a woman has unique benefits for children and society.” He contrasts this to single parent families. But since there has never been single gender marriage, there are no studies with which to contrast the cited statistics. Not to mention that, while 1man/1woman marriage may not be the same, as regards the positives of raising a child, as same gender marriage, but neither is the latter the same as single parent and so his main argument fails as a false analogy.
The essay ends by railing against a decision made by “a non-elected group of justices,” which he hopes will be overturned by “elected leaders.” Is the Senator suggesting that the Supreme Court is not a vital branch of our federal government? I doubt that and instead suggest he is using situational rhetoric to further roil the emotions of his supporters. One hopes that he finds himself facing serious competition in his re-election campaign in 2006 and that the people of Pennsylvania understand how poorly he represents their interests. Asshat!
[Note: I submitted a slighlty edited form of this as a letter to the editor, aren’t you all surprised?]
BillSaysThis 