Republicans, for some reason, have this obsession with equating homosexuality with children. If it isn’t them equating homosexuality with pedophilia, it is them trying to claim that same-sex marriage is like allowing children to get married. This has never quite made sense other than the fact that they seem almost desperate to normalize child brides and pedophilia.
In Pennsylvania, the Department of Health is suing to stop Montgomery County from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In their briefs, they made a rather common argument.
The Department of Health writes in their brief that “Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to 12-year-olds in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each 12-year-old . . . is entitled to a hearing on the validity of his ‘license’?” Except that Register of Wills Bruce Hanes was not, and did not. Nor did the clerk in question make any move to do so.
The problem is the issue of consent. Anti-gay activists and Republicans constantly and consistently ignore the issue of consent when they equate same-sex marriage to something like child marriages or pedophilia or bestiality.
A child of twelve is not considered to have the mental faculty to understand a marriage license. Several states got around this issue by having the parents consent to the marriage, but that has long since been edited out of most marriage laws.
So far, 150 same-sex couples have asked to be married in Montgomery County.
The problem with the state’s argument is that it, essentially, gives the courts and same-sex marriage supporters a hook that they can drive into the anti-gay marriage arguments. Simply put, this argument by the Department of Health largely states that lesbians and gays are being discriminated against based solely upon their sexual orientation.
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, has stated that “the analogy chose in the legal brief filed on August 28th is inappropriate.” The problem is that they do not have an argument that would sustain being hit by any kind of rational scrutiny, or any scrutiny at all, in fact.
Many of the couples involved have petitioned to intervene in the case in hopes that they can protect their marriages.
The problem for the anti-gay groups is that they may have some (dwindling) luck in pursuing their arguments in the court of public opinion, but they do not have that luxury in the courts, and in the courts, it becomes devastatingly obvious that their arguments against same-sex marriage are worthless.