A Bizarre Argument Filed Against Same-Sex Marriage

As the Supreme Court prepares to address whether or not same-sex couples have the Constitutional right to marry, the issue has attracted those in virulent opposition to come out of the woodwork. Among them is a group of "same-sex attracted men and their wives" urging SCOTUS to rule in objection of gay marriage. Filed by opposite-sex couples consisting of gay men married to straight women (I know, kind of confusing), the amicus brief argues that legalizing gay marriage will send the message that a "traditional intersex marriage" is impossible for the LGBT community — basically, restricting them to only same-sex life commitments.

Allow the brief to explain to you what I myself find difficult to reason with.

If this Court were to prematurely terminate the democratic debate over how best to recognize and respond to the complex reality of same-sex relationships by constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage, it would finalize and federalize this message — for the same-sex attracted, marriage to a member of the opposite sex is an impossibility, even meaningless, and only same-sex marriage can bring gays and lesbians the personal and family fulfillment and happiness that is the universal desire of the human heart. That one-size-fits-all message is false, and the Court ought not to send it.

The confounding brief goes on to say that a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage is detrimental to the marriages and families of these "same-sex attracted men." Passage of a federal ruling allowing gay marriage will only "demean and disparage" these men, it stated.

Far be it for me to comment on their personal life choices, because all power to them to thrive in an intersex marriage (God knows how difficult it is most couples), but the reasoning behind their opposition to gay marriage seems absurd.

Basically, what the brief is saying is the current system where states can ban gay marriage creates "diverse solutions" for gay people to marry someone of the opposite sex and that is preferable over allowing gay couples to marry because it would limit them to the belief that only by marrying a person of the gender they're attracted to can they be happy. It's a dizzying paradox that fails to take into account the fact that banning same-sex marriage already prohibits gay couples from having any sort of option to marry outside of the one that these group of men decided on. Wouldn't legalizing gay marriage allow for actual choices for the LGBT community?

The brief includes testimonies from gay men who are married to women aimed at disproving that gay people can only enjoy a rewarding, same-sex marriage. Which is wonderful for them, but other people who want to marry their same-sex significant other should not be barred from doing so just so they can explore an opposite-sex marriage.

A whole bunch of such filings exhorting the Supreme Court to rule against gay marriage have cropped up, including from the expected entities such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and 15 states. Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays — or the "formerly-gay" party — also filed a brief contending that sexual orientation is a "fluid, transient, personal characteristic, and that individuals can and do change their sexual orientation."

But don't fret, because there are plenty others advocating for SCOTUS to legalize gay marriage. As The Courier-Journal reported, those include the more rational, such as the Anti-Defamation League, Human Rights Campaign, 379 U.S. employers (including Procter & Gamble), the Obama administration, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Image: Getty Images (2)