[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The argument against same-sex marriage is that it will lessen or diminish or corrupt or even destroy straight marriage. So, by that logic, a straight judge would have to have recused himself, too. Because that judge might have been married or wanting to marry one day. So he would have had an interest in keeping marriage uncorrupted.

And, of course, by this logic, a woman could never rule in a sex discrimination suit. A Jewish person could never rule in a religious discrimination suit, etc.

Underlying all this is the wrong-headed and simple assumption that only straight white male non-disabled protestants between the ages of 18 and 65 are free of bias. That they are the default American and that everything deviant from that operates as some sort of affectation. Note--not that a white male non-disabled protestant between the ages of 18 and 65 is a better American than someone who is not. It is that a white male non-disabled protestant between the ages of 18 and 65 is a more real American than someone who is not. That they exist outside of bias because their beliefs are, ipso facto, America's beliefs. They don't just run the country. They are the Country.

(This assumption actually drives most of the dog-whistling about "real America" from the neocons. And it explains why it can seem so hard for red and blue to talk to each other. The conversation starts with an assumption so inherent to some folks that they don't even realize that they are making it, and so alien to some folks that it does not even occur to them that someone else would believe it.)

To me, America stands for the idea that the state should not prejudice a person for being a non-[white male non-disabled protestant between the ages of 18 and 65]. And I personally believe that America's strength comes from our diversity and that no one group of Americans can ever represent the default "American." But, mileage seems to vary pretty significantly on this point.

Zoinks. Well said. Nice post.