By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
I just watched a clip of Perez Hilton and Dennis Prager’s marriage debate from Larry King Live Tuesday. I was struck by Hilton’s integrity and countenance. He made an excellent case and kept his composure, something I could not do as a viewer. Prager’s arguments were frustrating, to say the least. He expressed sympathy for people who want to have a same-sex marriage and even said he understood that marriage is “exactly what one would want.” He also agreed with Perez that America was founded on a principle of separation of church and state -- which really is more of a fact than an opinion, but some people have a hard time with that concept. Yet, remarkably, Prager managed to remain opposed to civil marriage for same-sex couples.
Though his rationale was convoluted, I believe I have nailed down a few of Prager’s key beliefs and concerns:
1) Men and women are inherently different.
2) Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
3) The American family unit ought to be based on marriage.
4) Children are rightly indoctrinated into the belief that they will grow up and get married one day.
At least he didn’t try to base his “defense of marriage” on religious reasons, right? But I’d like to submit a few axioms and contentions directed at Prager that will undo his whole case.
The first is that the government should not discriminate against someone on the basis of sex or gender. Granted, that amendment has failed in every Congress since 1982, but my point remains. Mr. Prager, you can talk to me about Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts all you like, but those are private institutions and this is a discussion of civil matters. And stop changing the topic, you sexist bigot. P.S. kudos to Perez for proclaiming that men and women -- and everyone in between --“make equal contributions to society.”
Secondly, how something is currently defined should not dictate how it will be defined in the future.
Definition : civil marriage is a legally binding contract between a male and female adult.
Future definition: civil marriage is a legally binding contract between two adults…or better yet: marriage is a religious term not intended for use in a secular government -- so let’s read just the lexicon.
Thirdly, the American family unit ought to be based on love. Second to that, it ought to be based on the sense of security that comes from knowing your government acknowledges that you are, in fact, a family. What will happen to my kids and spouse when I die? Can my spouse visit me in the hospital and make medical decisions for me in the event of my incapacitation? Will we have to set up complicated documents with an expensive lawyer to ensure we have as many parental rights as possible protecting ourselves and our children? These are not questions a family should have to ask.
Lastly, Mr. Prager, let me reconstruct your argument. You said children should not be asked when they are six or seven years old, “Will you marry a boy or a girl?” You also said that you think same-sex couples should be given rights. Setting aside the obvious solution, which is as simple not asking kids such an awkward question, what would you propose instead? Because “Hey, Johnny, will you get married or civil unioned?” just seems completely absurd. Not to mention it would bring up questions such as “why does one kind of person get this thing, but another kind get this thing?”
Maybe only 3 percent of the population is in the market for a same-sex marriage, but Mr. Prager, haven’t you ever read Martin Luther King, Jr’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail?”
King wrote, “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.” Sir, I charge that an unjust law is exactly what you are defending, and history will judge you for it if you do not reverse your convictions.
