Right Wing Nut: ‘Gay Marriage Still Doesn’t Exist, No Matter What The Supreme Court Says’

Matt Walsh, a writer at Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, took to the Internet today to blast the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling. The title of his piece is called, “Gay Marriage Still Doesn’t Exist, No Matter What the Supreme Court Says.”

We wish we were making this up, but we aren’t. Walsh really thinks that. He starts off with:

“The Supreme Court is wrong. It’s pretty simple. They’re wrong. They’ve been wrong many times in the past, and seem to be wrong with an increasing regularity these days.”

He goes on to blast Roe v. Wade, and both decisions upholding the Affordable Care Act. The Court, in his view, is just plain wrong on this, and it’s a sad, sad testament to how America is falling from grace that we, the people, won’t stand up and demand that our leaders be right.

Of course, he means his definition of “right.” The religious right’s definition of “right.” Never mind what’s actually right.

Walsh goes on to say:

“So, despite the fact that neither marriage nor homosexuals are explicitly or implicitly or actually or metaphorically or literally mentioned in the Constitution, our nation will now celebrate as a few con artists in black robes pretend all that stuff is in there anyway. Then again, they hardly even pretended this time. The majority opinion legalizing gay marriage across the country and undoing the will of the people and their elected representatives in 14 states reads like a lengthy Facebook post written by a 17-year-old.”

This is becoming a typical talking point of the religious right. The Constitution doesn’t specifically mention marriage, let alone gay marriage, so the Court had no business even hearing the case. Forget due process, forget equal protection, the word “marriage” is not in there, let alone the phrase, “gay marriage,” so STFU, liberals! The religious right has an ironclad argument here!

One particular gem of Walsh’s touches on something almost too ridiculous to mention, but not doing so would make him out to be a little saner than he is. He said:

“The majority opinion even cites a couple’s need for “intimacy and spirituality” as a reasoning to decree gay marriage across the land. But since when is intimacy and spirituality a judicial matter?”

Oh, gee, let’s think for a moment, shall we? It’s a judicial matter when we call marriage a right, but then qualify it by saying it’s only a right for straight, cisgender people. Walsh points out that we want the government out of our bedrooms, and then says that this is government intrusion into the bedroom. How? That makes no sense at all. Does he explain his thinking on that?

Well, not really. He says something sarcastic about how the next ruling will say his wife has a right to roses and a slow dance on the beach at sunset. This is possibly one of the most clueless things ever said.

What Walsh, and the religious right, do not understand is that the Supreme Court has said marriage is a right, but we’ve used all sorts of arguments to deny that right to certain groups of people based on nothing more than a few people’s opinions that a particular matchup is “icky.” Seriously, that’s what it comes down to, and that’s what the Court decided couldn’t rule anymore. That didn’t stop Walsh though. He ended that particular part of his diatribe with:

“But whatever the Supreme Court says, the Truth remains the same: There is no right to gay marriage. There is no gay marriage. It’s not real. It’s not possible.

It’s make-believe. It means nothing.”

Pardon us while we laugh hysterically.

Speaking of rights, what does Walsh believe a right is? He says:

“Constitutional rights are the kind endowed in us by the Creator. Rights inherent in our humanity by virtue of the fact that we are created by the Divine Force. God bestows in us a certain dignity, and no man should attempt to deprive us of it. Those are human rights.”

Yes, he really brought out the America-is-a-Christian-nation argument on this. Our rights are granted to us by his god, therefore, regardless of reality, only the rights he and the religious right agree with are rights people should have. Then, only the people they believe should have them, can have them. Oppression at its finest.

He also says:

“You can’t seriously argue that ‘traditional’ marriage deprives a gay man of his dignity. Marriage is an institution. As such, it has certain parameters and lines of distinction. The existence of those lines does not constitute an imposition on, or persecution of, those outside of it. It merely distinguishes one thing from another, that’s all.”

Oh, well, when he puts it that way, no, we can’t. Silly us.

That’s not even the argument, however. The argument is that a gay man is deprived of dignity when he’s told he can’t marry the person he loves, by people who don’t even know him or walk in his shoes.

Conversely, Walsh can’t seriously believe that two men, or two women, marrying each other deprives a straight married couple of their dignity. Yet, that’s exactly the argument he’s trying to make here. It’s sad.

Of course, no argument from the religious right is complete without this slippery slope fallacy:

“As we’ve seen, the Supreme Court, in its destruction of the old definition of marriage, arbitrarily established a new one. Kennedy described marriage as a loving bond between two people, but never explained why he, the Great Oracle, deigned to keep it limited to two people. Or why it has to be loving. Or why it has to be a bond.

Why can’t marriage be a relaxed and indifferent arrangement between six people? Why can’t it be a hateful contract between four adults, one cat and a block of cheese? Why can’t it be anything I want it to be?”

Marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults. If all adults involved are consenting, and able to support the household, then why does polygamy continue to remain outlawed? (The Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints practices abuse that it calls polygamy, so let’s not get confused here.) As far as one cat and a block of cheese, or an adult and a child (which some have brought up), a cat and a block of cheese are not consenting adults. A child is not a consenting adult.

And the rest of the paragraph is just absurd.

Walsh’s definition of marriage is full of the same stuff we’ve been hearing since marriage equality came to the fore. It’s between a man and a woman because it’s been that way for thousands of years (it hasn’t). It’s between a man and a woman so they can have children (except not all married couples choose to have children, or can have children). It’s between a man and a woman because, because, because…and that justifies continued oppression of the LGBTQ community.

He also defines homosexuality as a choice, and therefore, gay people should not be allowed to marry each other because we’re redefining marriage based on a lifestyle choice. That, too, is patently false, but the religious right will not open its eyes to that.

In other words, Walsh’s entire rant boils down to, “I don’t want to share marriage with the icky gheys! Maybe if I pretend this never happened, they’ll go away and I can continue being a hateful bigot in peace.”

Are these people ever going to give us a coherent argument as to why it’s okay to withhold a fundamental right from a minority of people? We shouldn’t hold our collective breath.

Featured image by Rika Christensen/Liberalistics