Sunday, October 17, 2004

Diversionary Tactics: The wacky argument against Amendment 3

The Salt Lake Tribune published a piece today by Jim Allred opposing Amendment 3, the Utah Constitutional Amendment to define marriage and deny any other union the same privileges as marriage. His argument? There's no good way to tell who is a man and who is a woman. "While taking some of the innocent joy out of the application process, stripping for verification is inevitable."

This statement is so silly it is hard to believe that Allred is serious, though he must be. There really is no hint of irony or satire in his piece. While it may be true that there are people with genetic qualities that make gender determination difficult on that level, this argument is a red herring.

Let's leave the determination of gender to doctors. If there is question, the opinions of doctors can be entered in a court of law and a judge can make the determination. That is the point of having judges after all, to make the judgment calls when the law can't be so specific.

To say we shouldn't enact amendment 3 because Allred doesn't know how to tell a man from a woman isn't a very compelling argument. Why doesn't he give us his real reasons?

No comments: