I'm Not a Fan of Matt Walsh: Part 2

Matt Walsh is an Idiot: Why “Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally” is not effective.

I am a glutton for punishment where Matt Walsh is concerned. He is a pompous ass, and reading his articles makes my blood boil, and not just because he writes for Glen Beck’s network and we don’t share the same opinions. Bottom line is that he is not a great writer. If he were to turn one of his articles into any of my University English professors, he would not have fared well. Even my 11^th grade English teacher would have ripped him a new one. Why: Because he cannot write an argumentative paper. Not a single one of his articles I have read has contained any semblance of argumentation. He likes to say things like, first and second, as if he’s actually introducing solid reasons to support his opinion, but they end up being wordy and condescending with an overabundance of analogies that don’t actually provide support.

The article listed in the title of my post is one of Walsh’s more recent endeavors. Initially I didn’t want to have anything to do with it, but after a conversation with my fiancé the other day about this article in particular, I decided it might not be such a bad idea.  The idea behind Walsh’s article is that there are those conservatives who didn’t want marriage equality who are now saying, ‘Well, it doesn’t actually affect me, so why complain about it now?’ Walsh is apparently incensed by people like this and says so flat out:

 “… it is not a  legitimate argument to say ‘it doesn’t affect me.’ Its effect on you is irrelevant to the issue. What kind of moral idiot measures the impact of a certain evil on his own life and calibrates his concern accordingly? We might all do this sometimes, but it’s a weakness. It’s shameful. It’s cowardice and self-interest. It’s not good. You shouldn’t be proud of it.” (Emphasis mine)

This is definitely the type of person I want on my side…. Someone who will tell me I’m an idiot for accepting the way the world is moving; for allowing others the right to partake in a union that was heretofore largely denied them and for recognizing that the marriage of a gay couple doesn’t impact the way you choose to live your life. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Walsh is the moral idiot. By calling all conservatives (and liberals) weak and shameful and cowards with too much self interest, he is proclaiming himself to be the exact opposite of these “not good” things. In Walsh’s reality, people like Caitlyn Jenner can’t be courageous or heroes, but he can, because he’s against gay marriage and all those who know that it won’t affect them. (See his article Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman is an Insult to Women)

According to Walsh, Progressivism “is a bubbling cauldron of vile, hideous hatred.” Apparently the use of symbols and bright colors is their way of disguising hostility and suspicion with love and happiness. In tandem with the bright colors, those of us who have changed profile pictures to the rainbow overlay are “obedient lemmings who blindly conform.” It’s almost pitiable that Walsh can’t see that he’s the lemming. He might be a more fundamental lemming with more extreme views, but he’s still following a pack that is absolutely terrified of deviating from the path they believe to have been prescribed to all mankind.

As is typical of a Walsh article, he uses absurd analogies in an effort to depict gay marriage as the atrocious thing he believes it to be, but they have little effect. He tends to the extreme, and in so doing, he reveals his inability to hold an argument:

“Now in this progressive dystopia, love has suddenly become something that tells you to drink battery acid and die.”

“If your house is falling into a sinkhole, would you say it doesn’t hurt you because you happen to be standing on the top floor?”

 He thinks that this house falling into a sinkhole effectively shows that of course everyone is hurt by gay marriage because “traditional marriage” is our foundation.

Walsh makes wild claims that Liberals (as in every single one of them) argue that the family should be abolished because it’s an oppressive patriarchal institution and that most homosexual activists know that gay marriage is not an “essential or true institution. Nor does it serve any real purpose in society.” He even claims that a lesbian activist told an audience “that the fight for gay marriage is a ‘lie’ and that the institution of marriage simply shouldn’t exist.”

I hate to say it Walsh, but gay marriage does serve a purpose in society. Gay’s are absolutely a part of society! By elevating them to equal footing with the hetero’s, they now have the same opportunities that are afforded their straight counterparts. Gay marriage does not elevate them above marriage between a man and a woman. It equalizes them. I don’t understand why it is so easy for people like Walsh to overlook so simple a word.

Whether some liberals advocate for the abolishment of a family or not, I don’t believe they are the majority. I’m new to the whole “liberal” world view and haven’t done extensive research on the subject, but I would contend that they don’t necessarily want to abolish marriage, they want to eradicate the patriarchal aspect of marriage. Marriage as a patriarchal institution promotes inequality amongst husband and wife. The man should not be the end-all be-all of a marriage or its family affairs. By getting rid of it, we get even closer to equalizing the sexes. Marriage equality isn’t just about gay marriage. It’s about equalizing everyone involved in this institution. Walsh is correct in saying that Liberals don’t want marriage to be what it currently is. They want people to be free to engage in love in any way they see fit (as long as it does not harm another individual). They’re not forcing people to conform to they’re way of life. They want everyone to be free to live the way they deem appropriate without judgment or condescension from others.

Walsh claims that this is a game of power and destruction. In a way, I think he’s right. But not in the way that he thinks he’s right. The Christian Right is flailing. They recognize that they are on the last leg of their marathon of influence and they’re terrified. They are the ones vying to maintain power. It’s not about power for those that advocate for equality. Attempting to gain more power completely negates the idea of equality. Walsh goes so far as to ask:

“Did black Americans react that way (referring to the vitriolic comments he received) when they achieved civil rights? Did women respond like this when they won the vote?”

He claims that the answer to both of these questions is a resounding no. But is he right? I don’t think so. The Civil Rights movement was plagued with riots from both sides. It was a very violent affair overall. The Women’s Suffrage movement might not have been quite as violent, but it was also marked by violent responses from both sides of the issue. Whether or not the violence continued after their Rights and the Vote were obtained is beside the point. There will always be those with a vitriolic response whether they win or not. In comparison, the gay rights movement has been largely peaceful. The bulk of casualties lies within the gay community itself, both physically and verbally.

Walsh claims that the difference between these movements is that Civil Rights and Women’s Suffrage were characterized by the need to participate in, and embolden constitutional liberties, implying that this is not what the Gay Rights movement is about. I don’t know how he reaches that conclusion, because this is exactly what it is about. Freedom. The freedom to express themselves; the freedom to love publicly; the freedom to participate in the rights that “first-class” citizens have always been allowed to participate in. Just like blacks and women and straight couples.

Walsh brings up the common argument that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because the marriages can’t produce offspring. This argument is tenuous at best because it brings up the question of whether those marriages where straight couples can’t or choose not to produce children should be allowed to happen. Should the government require that all couples that want to be married have to provide absolute proof that they can produce children and sign a contract that they will in fact, engage in the act of sex solely to produce offspring; because this is where the procreation argument leads. Refusing one specific type of couple the right to marry because their “parts don’t fit”, but not refusing that same right to those who just can’t or won’t produce, is part of the inequality that abounds in the whole institution of marriage. You can’t deny one without denying the other.

Walsh drones on a bit at the end about gay marriage being the beginning of the end of Church’s. It’s the whole slippery slope argument, despite his declaration to the contrary.

Walsh does manage to say one honest thing though. He says: “There was never any law preventing any gay person from loving anyone or anything.” (Not sure why he added the “anything”.) He’s right. There wasn’t. But society, and more specifically religion, dictated that they had to hide it; that acting on it was an abomination and a sure way to make it to hell. They were denied the right to experience love and marriage and family the same way that any straight couple was allowed to. That is where the issue lay.

 Does gay marriage affect you? Does it affect me? No. The people it affects are the ones who get to participate in it. Heterosexuals are not going to be forced to become gay. They are not going to be forced to participate in gay parades if they don’t want to be. Church’s are not going to be forced to accept gay’s into congregations, nor will they be forced to perform gay marriages. Gay marriage does not take rights away. It gives rights to those who were denied them and protects religious institutions by further separating Church from State.