You may as well do your research, by the way, because this isn’t over. It will come up periodically until it’s shown that it doesn’t help turn out the raised-to-be-prejudiced (which tends to be more rural, which tends to be more republican) vote.

The Amendment will likely never have a snowball’s chance, but for those with the power to raise the issue, that’s actually a plus — nobody gets as indignant and energized about an issue they’ve already won.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve loved having this dialog. It’s a great feeling to see somebody reads this site besides myself! :D

1. Traditionalists are against breaking up marriages.
2. The amendment breaks up marriages.
3. Therefore, traditionalists are being hypocritical when they are pro– this amendment.

But the argument is invalid because of the shifting definition of “marriage” in 1 & 2. Ah, here, this is what it’s doing: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html

If I restate the argument to make the meaning of the word clear, it becomes invalid:

1. Traditionalists are against breaking up {loving unions between two people}. (this premise is not true; it is too general)
2. The amendment breaks up {loving unions between two people}.
3. Therefore, traditionalists are being hypocritical when they are pro– this amendment.

or

1. Traditionalists are against breaking up {loving unions between a man and woman}.
2. The amendment breaks up {loving unions between a man and a woman}. (this is certainly not true)
3. Therefore, traditionalists are being hypocritical when they are pro– this amendment.

So, it doesn’t matter which definition of the word is the correct one, the argument is still invalid because he’s using both.

BTW, your original post made me think and I’ve much enjoyed the dialog. :)

(*) I think it could also be argued that a law in MA doesn’t change the meaning of the word marriage overnight, and therefore at minimum there are two working definitions to the word, and at maximum, the word doesn’t (yet) mean what he is taking it to mean– in historical terms, MA’s definition is quite new, and it takes time for the meaning of words to change. However, I won’t argue that because I don’t think my point hinges on it.

As you say, Mr. Scalzi uses a legal definition. When anti-SSM folks use the word ‘marriage’, they usually use it to mean whatever best forwards their argument. That is, either a) an rarified, idealized form of marriage, which they call ‘traditional’, or b) the commonly understood man/woman legal meaning of marriage (which in the early 90’s some clever person in Hawaii discovered didn’t specifically state man/woman, and it took nearly a day for the furor to strike down a legal SSM that took place). Oddly, they commonly talk about marriage being created by God, even though it’s only ever state marriage (and not religious marriage) that they are trying to hoard and keep from gays.

As far as the 14th Amendment idea you brought up (if one state recognizes SSM, it should be valid in all states), it has been brought up. But there are very good reasons that, say, the ACLU hasn’t brought the kind of case you mention to the Supreme Court. The SC isn’t promising at the moment. Four justices (I’ll let you guess which ones) have written that (ITHO) the Constitution doesn’t compel SSM recognition by states. So it would have to be a clean sweep of all the other five to rule, you know, unbiasedly. Basically, recognizing that courts are in fact biased (much as courts were often biased against racial equality fifty years ago), the best strategy is to win at the state level until at least a majority of states recognize SSM (or don’t prohibit it) before heading to the SC.

And even challenging lower courts — those in states that have over-reaching state laws and constitutions — is too risky except in specific cases right now. Courts are funny (strange, not ‘ha ha’). Those that commonly deal with constitutional rights issues often tend to be more protective of them. Those that don’t, aren’t. If you bring marriage cases into ‘bad’ courts, you’ll likely lose many of them, and then it takes longer (because of precident) to get good marriage rulings again. Also, a bad decision puts other same-sex rights issues at risk.

Finally, yes. ‘Traditionalist’ is less inflamatory than ‘bigot’, and I’m usually careful to differentiate. I’ll use ‘ignorant’, ‘under-informed’, or some slightly less inflammatory label for those I find are willing to engage and state that they’d change their mind if the evidence doesn’t support their position. But I don’t hesitate to call those opportunistic ass-hats that use this issue to energize their base during an election year, or to open the pocketbooks of their viewing audience, ‘bigots’. I also use ‘bigot’ when I talk about people who are willing to repeat, out-of-hand, any buzz-word argument that hits the public airwaves without being willing to think through what conclusion reality-based data actually supports (or doesn’t support). For example: Jim Nussle, both for using illogical buzz-word arguments (we must protect the family) and for using the issue as an election-year wedge issue, fits firmly into the ‘manipulative close-minded bigot’ category.

Perhaps the confusion over the how the word “marriage” is being used by both sides of the argument is part of the problem. Of course from what I heard on NPR earlier today; this isn’t an issue any more as the amendment got voted down.

Your point made sense and was not annoying or condescending. Also, I agree traditionalist is much less inflamatory than bigot. I’m pretty sure Mr. Scalzi specifically used the word bigot to be inflamatory. From reading his blog, I get the impression he enjoys a good argument. :)

“…[Get] them to admit that they need to destroy legal, loving marriages in order to accomplish their goals.”

To make this really clear, read his statement two ways: the first time, mentally replace “marriage” with “union between two people”. It will make sense. The second time, replace it with “union between a man and a woman” and all of a sudden he’s accusing the traditionalists of something that doesn’t even make sense.

So, in fact, given the definition of “marriage” the traditionalists use, they are not being hypocritical, as he appears to be arguing. IOW, traditionalists are against “redefining marriage” ONLY in the sense that they are against defining it other than they say it should be defined.

Here is his argument, changed to be not so fallacious:

1. Traditionalists are against breaking up loving unions.
2. SSM is a loving union.
3. Therefore, traditionalists ought to be against breaking up SSMs.
4. Traditionalists don’t mind breaking up SSMs.
5. Therefore, traditionalists are being hypocritical.

But even this is still severly lacking, as it simplifies the traditionalists’ position so much that it is probably no longer an accurate representation of their position.

Did any of that make sense? I’ve not had enough caffine today. If I sound annoyed or condescending then let me apologize in advance and I assure you neither one is intended. And Mr. Scazi and I would almost certainly vote the same way on this were we both senators, so yes I am purely being technical and nitpicky. :)

(*) btw I’ve been using the word “traditionalist” instead of “bigot” as it seems less inflamatory to me…

Mind you, I don’t honesty expect he’ll be able to convince anybody on the other side of the fence with this argument.

So I guess I’m saying I think there’s much better ways of saying, “The constitutional amendment thing is a Bad Idea™.”

Small-minded people have been using the “It’s Tradition!” argument for forever. The bigots’ argument, and Mr. Scalzi’s argument, are both the same kind of argument-from-inertia.

In 2004, an honest-to-God argument I heard for W’s re-election was, “you can’t go changing Presidents in the middle of a war.” Some will see the irony in this right away, but let me quickly spell it out:

A — This was a voluntary war on the US’s part. We went in at our (W’s) convenience, once the President whipped up support (this took about a year-and-a-half).

B — People later claimed — without a bit of irony — that because Bush had decided to start a war, we had to let him continue running the country. Again, these folks claim that a President who wants a second term simply has to manufacture a war in order to deserve it. (I don’t know if a second term war-starting President should then get a third term.)

So, back to SSM. Mr. Scalzi’s argument goes something like this:

A — The bigots say they are for marriage, and against re-definition.

B — A few years ago, 2% of the US changed its definition of marriage to include SSM, over the bigots’ protests.

C — Their amendment would be solidifying a definition for 98% of the country. But counter to their claim of not wanting to change definitions, it would re-define marriage back to the way it was a few years ago for 2% of the country.

D — This is also counter to the bigots’ claim that they’re for marriage, because it would end thousands of SSMs which were based on the first re-definition.

Again, some will see the irony right away. If group A says they like the current course and don’t want to change it, then all group B has to do is make a tiny change, and call hypocrisy if group A wants to get back on course. This is a spurious and facile argument.

(By the way, Mr. Scazi tacked a second argument onto his first: That we would be creating second-class citizens if we ended the existing SSMs. I’d say most societies, including and especially the US, have considered homosexuals second-class citizens through the millenia, up to present day. He’s right, though, that an amendment would be codifying it.)

Now, there are plenty of real reasons to allow legalization of SSM. Far and away the clearest is that nobody has *ever* brought a factual, non-religious-based (that is, secular) reason to prohibit SSM to the table. It really is that simple. Long ago, when I first started looking into this topic in depth, I spent wayyy too much time discussing/arguing on a bbs run by a friend I had at Iowa State. (See http://www.leepfrog.com/~kwelsch/SSM-debate.txt for a painfully long thread of me discussing the point in depth with died-in-the-wool conservative Christians.)

That’s when I discovered that A) there weren’t any logical secular reasons for denying SSM, just bigoted ones. And B) that’s really all that matters.