Mouthy

I have a long history of being mouthy, and since same-sex marriage is a hot topic, I sent letter to the editor of the Austin American-Statesman. They published it today. (I had a few others posted on other topics.) It's a condensed version of the last piece, but includes a response and a reply.

This is the text of what I submitted, only mildly edited by the paper's staff:

The federal court's ruling overturning California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage reignited a firestorm and has left politicians (including the president) with the options of either supporting it, condemning it or taking the middle road. The middle would be domestic partnerships.
While it is politically expeditious to endorse domestic-partner laws, endorsing gay marriage is a much stickier wicket. I realize that. But the truth of the matter is that not doing so perpetuates the class of "other."

"Separate but equal" was ruled by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional long ago. This issue is no different.

I am tired of being "other." As George Orwell so tersely put it in "Animal Farm," "Some animals are more equal than others."

As it stands, most people I know are more equal than me.

That's how it shakes out at the end of the day. I'm separate, but by no means equal.
Austin

Someone posted this response:

Regarding the "some animals are more equal than others" quote, there are valid reasons for saddling horses and rounding up cattle. The idea that all animals are the same is as silly as seeing no difference in men and women. The worst part of this is trying to point out the obvious without sounding stupid.

This was my response to the critic:

I'm afraid you're the one who sounds stupid. "Animal Farm" is an allegory about fascism. The whole point of Orwell's statement was that, although we are all different, our rights should be the same. The function that an individual serves in society is a totally unrelated to any discussion of rights.

In addition, you seem to imply that men and women should be treated differently because of their genitalia. To take your argument to its natural conclusion, it would justify assigning rights based on societal function.

Your logic is severely flawed, and your attack is ad hominem and thoroughly unreasoned. As well as unflattering. It paints you as either unintelligent or as a bigot.

I think the exchange speaks volumes about the whole issue. Many people cannot overcome ingrained bigotry and rely on poor and/or illogical arguments to rebut challenges to it.