Time for Another “What’s Bill Mad at Today?” Entry

Though my occasional rants might suggest otherwise, I still enjoy reading the Post. But every once in a while, they don’t quite get it right (and as we all know, “right” means “agreeing with Bill about everything”; just as long as we’re clear on that). On today’s Opinion page, they’ve got an editorial on the Massachusetts ruling that gay marriages are protected under that state’s constitution. Now, I’m no constitutional scholar (though I play one on TV), but if the statements made in the editorial are correct, then one of the primary underpinnings of the ruling is a finding that, to use the wording of the editorial, “no legislator could possibly have any ‘rational basis’ for opposing gay marriage.” The editorial claims that, though they agree with the ruling as a matter of policy, that specific finding is suspect. And sure, a “gut-instinct” reading might support that contention.

But I’ve said it before (in a fair amount of detail — go see for yourself), and I’ll say it again, for the record: There is no “rational basis” for opposing gay marriage! None whatsoever. It is logically indefensible. That’s not to say that folks can’t object to homosexual union, on moral or religious grounds, for example. Neither is it to say that their objections are not worth taking into consideration in the formation of law — also for the record, I personally find the objections completely meritless, but that’s not stopping the right-wing nut jobs conservative opposition from having their say. But it’s important — nay, vital — to understand that those objections have no basis in rationality. And if that’s the grounds for the ruling, then it is completely sound. Case closed. The Massachusetts legislature is, of course, free to respond to the ruling, or even to amend the state constitution, but as it stands, we’re on solid footing.

Richard Cohen also has a column on the subject, “This May Be Good for Marriage,” and I think he’s got a good point. More importantly, he’s got a great opening line: “If Tom DeLay had half a brain (if pigs had wings)...”