An Iowa Republican party official has come up with an argument for feminist opposition to marriage equality that is so intricate, this feminist (me) cannot actually understand the logic behind it. Please, join me in teasing out exactly how it is that same-sex marriages -- which epitomize the literal definition of "gender equality" -- fail to achieve gender equality.
On her radio show "Truth for Our Time" last week, Republican National Committee member Tamara Scott performed some elaborate feats of mental gymnastics during an interview with fellow RNC member Carolyn McLarty of Oklahoma, in which the two discussed an anti-same-sex marriage amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court. At one point, Scott posited that "women who are fussing on the left" about institutionalized sexism and gender-based discrimination should actually align themselves with those who oppose same-sex unions, because individual gay and lesbian marriages do not achieve gender equality between men and women.
"By 2020, they want 50/50 in the state houses and the U.S. House and Senate. They want 50 percent women and 50 percent men, they want 50/50, they want equality," Scott explained. "So my laugh is, why wouldn’t you want equality in a marriage? Why aren’t those same women wanting that same argument at home? Because we know children do better when they’re raised by their biological parents."
McLarty agreed, also blaming "the feminist movement" for its totally nonsensical support of everybody having equal rights. "The feminist movement, they’ve been against marriage from the beginning, against traditional marriage," she said. "And it was up until the Massachusetts court case in 2003 where they recognized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts that they kind of changed their tune. And now they see that this would also destroy marriage, so they’re for same-sex marriage."
She offered a more concise summary of her views: "The extreme feminist movement and the gay liberation movement really is using same-sex marriage as a way to destroy marriage," McLarty said.
She and Scott also expressed their opposition to LGBT civil unions, because such agreements still legally acknowledge "the act" that "God has not condoned" between same-sex couples. I guess "the act" must not refer to filing a joint federal tax return?
"I can’t condone what [God has] condemned," Scott said. "I just can’t go there. So to ask or to force American citizens to condone something that’s against their deeply held religious convictions is wrong. So whether you call it marriage or you call it a civil union, you’re still asking your fellow citizens to embrace something that goes against their First Amendment religious protections."
To recap: Feminists should oppose marriage equality because same-sex marriages do not contain equal numbers of men and women. Also, it is a violation of other people's First Amendment religious protections to acknowledge that sometimes, people of the same sex and/or gender have sex. Got it!
Watch a clip from Scott's radio show, via Right Wing Watch, below:
(h/t Raw Story)