Charles Davenport's recent windbaggery

Today's (Greensboro, NC) News & Record has an opinion column by Charles Davenport in which he wags a finger at "liberals" (he names two) who have the audacity to name hate and prejudice when they see it (not online). He writes:

"It is much easier, of course, to demonize one's opponents, to simply brand him as a racist or bigot, than it is to advance an argument based on logic and evidence."

In November of 2008, Davenport wrote a N&R column in which he celebrated California voters' rejection of gay marriage through the passage of Proposition 8. Similar to today's column, Davenport used his ink to insist that an objection to gay marriage is not hate and that popular sentiment should trump equal rights. But the column lacked any "argument based on logic and evidence" against gay marriage.

So I emailed Mr. Davenport:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Just curious
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:03:37 -0500
From: Roch Smith Jr
To: daisha99@msn.com


Hi Charles,

Just read your most recent column. I'm left with one question. Why do you oppose gay marriage?

Yours,
Roch

I got no reply.

You know what is easy, Mr. Davenport? Easy is skipping the logical arguments, pretending they've been made and jumping to attacking people who find bigotry in your views precisely because you assert them in the absence of logical reasons. Easy is saying we should listen to your arguments even as you remain silent when people ask what your arguments are.

The problem for Davenport is that the "arguments" against gay marriage don't stand up as logical.

- "I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman," doesn't offer logic or evidence. It is a statement of belief, one that doesn't justify the usual accompanying objection to civil unions, but it is, nonetheless, an opinion without logic or evidence and against which there really is no argument.

- "I think we should be defending traditional marriage." Sure, have at it. Make it harder for people to get divorced or harder to get married in the first place if that is truly your objective, but unless and until you can convince us that people will start getting married to people of the same sex instead of people of the opposite sex if gay marriage is allowed, this is just irrelevant nonsense.

- "Next thing you know, 'they' will want to marry children." Again, not a reasoned argument or evidence, but nonetheless: Unlike marriage between two consenting adults, this involves exploitation of a victim. The slippery slope fear ignores the all-too-evident fact that we, as a society, do not descend into anarchy simply because we extend rights equally to our adult population. Raising the speed limit to 65 did not result in people just going as fast as they please. Extending to gay people the same rights currently available to straight people is the only issue in question. The red herrings are fear mongering.

- "Marriage is for the procreation of children." We already reject that in allowing people beyond child-bearing age and people who cannot or will not have children, for whatever reason, get married.

- "Gay people can already procure the same rights as married people through various civil contracts." That is simply untrue. A monumental effort may allow a gay couple to mirror some of the rights and obligations marriage confers upon a couple, but not entirely and not without great expense and time -- not equal.

Hate is hard to know. It is one of those things that lives in the heart and mind, concealable if that is one's intention. Bigotry and prejudice however can be judged by external words and deeds. When people object to extending to gay people the equal rights and benefits that come with marriage and pretend that there are logical reasons when there are not, that is the kind of evidence that can properly justify words like bigot, prejudiced and homophobe.