Responding to the Star Tribune's Katherine Kersten could easily fill a blogger's screen for a year and I typically have ignored her. But this past Sunday's screed against gay marriage is just too delicious to pass up. It's no surprise Kerstin is writing about her opposition to gay marriage. Gays probably rank right up with there with scary Muslims and the downfall of today's culture as tried and true Kersten columns.
I found it interesting that Kersten in her opening paragraph has to backtrack a little on gay marriage. She admits that if a married couple asks "how does gay marriage directly impact my own hetero-marriage?" she can't point out any good examples. Part of this is a realization that we've had gay marriage now for a number of years in some states (including next door Iowa) and all the doom and gloom predicted by the gay marriage opponents have not come to pass (much like we have yet to see a Islamic-centered agenda from Congressman Keith Ellison that KK was so worried about).
Doom and gloom won't work because we have too much evidence that gay marriage really has no impact on how we live our everyday lives. So Kersten has to fall back on philosophy. Kersten's main argument against gay marriage is that marriage is an institution needed to create families. In other words, marriage is reserved for those who can procreate. Here's the kicker quote: "Marriage channels men's and women's sexual attraction into productive ends, and harnesses the male sex drive by binding men to the mothers of their children."
No word on whether or not a couple's marriage can be revoked if for some reason they were not able to produce children or if there is some sort of contract a couple signs when getting a marriage license that states that they will produce x number of children over the course of their marriage. Just think of the possibilities! More importantly what about post-menopausal women who want to get married? Should they be refused marriage too? Under a KK world will men and women have to undergo fertility testing to make sure that they are able to procreate and thus uphold the real purpose of marriage? Does every man over the age of 55 get Viagra with their marriage license?
Of course if we talked with KK she would scoff at all of those examples. But in a nutshell these examples are at the core of her problem. The anti-gay marriage logic is so tortured, so gerrymandered to solely defend her anti-homosexual agenda that it just falls apart under the faintest of scrutiny.
Not withstanding the disappointing vote against it in Maine last week, gay marriage is more and more becoming a reality on the United States. Younger people have no issue with gay marriage and since most of the opposition lies with older people, each year that opposition becomes less and less pronounced. The states that have approved gay marriage have not become Sodom and Gomorrah, gays haven't been "recruiting" more kids to their team, and existing hetero marriages are just as strong (or weak) as ever. The fact that gay marriage opponents are left with flimsy philosophical arguments and stale anti-gay anecdotes to make their case shows how out of the mainstream they've become.
Update: There was a hilarious parody of the Kersten column in today's strib. Read the Kersten column from the link above, then check out this. Good stuff.