The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy (35 page)

16
. Robert Nozick,
Anarchy, State and Utopia
(New York: Basic Books, 1974), 30–31, 58. For more on the Kantian aspects of self-ownership, see Robert Taylor, “A Kantian Defense of Self-Ownership,”
The Journal of Political Philosophy
, 12:1 (2004): 65–78.

17
. For an excellent discussion on the distinction between autarchy and autonomy, see Stanley Benn,
A Theory of Freedom
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

18
. Decker at times, in chapter 16 of this book, focuses his criticism on an agent’s lack of autonomy. The central plot of “Medicinal Fried Chicken” has Randy Marsh deciding to give himself testicular cancer in order to receive medicinal marijuana. In response to this decision, Decker writes, “Given both the pros and cons, it’s absurd that Randy Marsh would put his long-term health at risk simply to get weed legally at the former KFC, but
his choice illustrates the lengths to which the denizens of South Park (and many real-life Americans) are willing to go to in order to satisfy their
hedonistic
urges
” (“Sitting Downtown at Kentucky Fried Chicken,” p. 199, emphasis added). I think libertarians would agree that this is not a rational choice—and, hence, not autonomous. However, it is an autarchic choice that Randy can be held accountable for—and, a choice he ought to be free to make.

19
. Machan, “The Case for Libertarianism,” 12.

20
. Gillespie and Walker, “
South Park
Libertarians.” As Matt Stone states, “But things like California’s smoking ban and Rob Reiner animate both of us. When we did that Rob Reiner episode, to us it was just common sense. Rob Reiner was just a great target.”

21
. Hospers, “Libertarianism and Legal Paternalism,” 265.

Jacob M. Held

Gay marriage is an issue that almost everyone has an opinion about. To make matters worse, almost everybody’s position, whether for or against, is based on really bad arguments. As with most controversial topics,
South Park
has also had its say. This chapter is going to center around one particular episode of
South Park
, “Follow That Egg!” But since its original airing in late 2005 a lot has happened with respect to gay marriage.
¹
California’s passage of Proposition 8 in 2008
²
and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s subsequent ruling that the gay marriage ban was unconstitutional
³
have brought gay marriage back into the spotlight for what appears to be an inevitable Supreme Court showdown. Also, North Carolina passed an amendment to constitutionally ban gay marriage in May 2012. Even President Obama has entered the debate by publically supporting same-sex marriage. These recent events show that although the ­episode may be getting old, the issue and the themes raised in it are as topical as ever.

In “Follow that Egg!” Mrs. Garrison attempts to rekindle her relationship with Mr. Slave, but the reunion doesn’t go as planned. Mr. Slave is going to marry Big Gay Al as soon as the Colorado governor signs a bill authorizing same-sex marriages. Mrs. Garrison vows to put an end to the bill, claiming, “Fags are gettin’ married over my dead body.”
⁴
She then begins her crusade against gay marriage, with arguments from tradition, the holy sacrament of marriage, and the parental needs of children.

There are many arguments for and against gay marriage. In what follows, I’ll look at the most familiar arguments on both sides and demonstrate that they usually miss the point, are entirely irrelevant, or are just bad arguments. In so doing, I hope to map out the landscape of the gay marriage debate and show how barren it is. The only real case for gay marriage is rooted in America’s political liberal tradition of “negative liberty.”

There’s a basic religious argument against gay marriage that simply says that, according to scripture and/or revelation, homosexuality is a sin, marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman, or
both
. Many religiously minded people take this issue seriously, and they have the right to their religious beliefs. But our government isn’t a theocracy and our rights shouldn’t be determined by religious traditions. We live under the Constitution, not the book of Leviticus. To be a good citizen, you obey a rule of law, not your pastor or priest. Whatever your god is, whatever book you think communicates this god’s laws, and however you interpret those laws is irrelevant to a debate about the distribution of rights and privileges in a democracy.
⁵
The United States is a secular nation.

So the religious argument may be subjectively comforting to some, but that’s about as much as it can convince. That is, unless Jesus Christ actually gets a public access call-in show, where we could actually get his take on the matter! But even then he couldn’t simply claim that his position was superior merely because “Jesus says so.” He’d still need to justify his view, and he’d have to appeal to reason using facts as evidence for his position. Mrs. Garrison does argue that marriage is a holy sacrament, but even she doesn’t push the point. She knows that marriage is a secular issue of rights and privileges, not a theological matter.

Another argument against gay marriage is an argument from definition; it says that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, so gay marriage can’t be marriage. This is trivially true. If marriage is defined in this way, then same-sex unions, whatever else they might be, can’t be marriage. But the last time I checked, we didn’t refer constitutional issues or matters of rights to
Webster’s Dictionary
.
⁶
We need more than a dictionary to understand the issues at hand here. To be charitable, let’s presume that what the definition argument really implies is that marriage is
essentially
a union between a man and a woman. But what could this mean? If it’s just about gender and Mr. Slave is now legally a woman, if she is going to marry anyone, she has to marry Mrs. Garrison. But surely this isn’t consistent with what opponents of gay marriage intend. When they speak of marriage there must be something else, because how can a marriage between Mr. Slave and Mrs. Garrison be acceptable for those who wish to maintain the sanctity of marriage?

What this argument usually boils down to is not just an issue about opposite sexes, but procreation; the essence of marriage is the connection of opposites for procreation.
⁷
A marriage is essentially a bond between a man and woman because they are the ones who can have children. But this presumes there are moral implications of simple biological or natural facts. If this moral order is one designed by a god, then it’s unacceptable, as we saw, for its lack of secularity. If it’s not theological, it still would imply that marriage should be illegal for post-menopausal women, sterile couples, or couples who willingly choose not to have children. They all violate the sanctity of marriage by denying its procreative purpose. To avoid this problem, some say it’s about the fact that a man and woman
could
have children if everything was working properly, whereas gays can’t possibly have children. It’s a biological fact about gay relationships that they’re not procreative. But still, what about childless couples who choose to be childless and remarriages of post-menopausal women? In fact, this whole argument seems to absurdly boil down to the idea that the ­possession of complementary sexual organs is the necessary condition for marriage. But this seems incredibly arbitrary when talking about the distribution of rights and privileges. Apparently, just because my wife and I “fit together,” we’re granted certain rights others aren’t; that is, we enjoy the position of a privileged class because of our ­genitalia—
not
because of our capacity to have children, our love for or commitment to each other, or any other factor that’s important to staying married. If I’ve framed this argument correctly, then not only is the argument circular (marriage is between a man and woman because only a man and woman can get married, and for no other reason than that one is a man and the other a woman), but also it betrays a simple bigotry: “Gays can’t get married because they’re gay.” End of story, no further explanation needed.

But rights are too important to be left to the irrational, emotional, or visceral reactions of others, and the law is not about enforcing the morality of the majority.
⁸
In fact, this is why the very idea of public referenda on marriage equality is a problem. The public shouldn’t be able to vote on who is or is not treated equally. Civil liberties should never be put up to a vote. Doing so subjects the minority to the whims of the majority. Instead, if we grant rights to some and not to others, there should be reasons for this. Reasons are what hold our society together and afford all of us an equal voice.

So there
must
be something more to the position against gay marriage. What about the argument from tradition that marriage has
always
been between a man and a woman? Although this is historically debatable,
⁹
let’s presume it’s true. So what? Slavery was a tradition with a long lineage, and so was the oppression of women. Tradition doesn’t prove that something is acceptable, just that others have accepted it. But the traditionalists must know this, because they always bolster this argument by claiming that traditional marriage has endured because it works so well and it’s a fundamental institution of society. George W. Bush (a.k.a. “Turd Sandwich”) has remarked: “Ages of experience have taught humanity that the ­commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.”
¹⁰
Let’s go with this appeal to good consequences, because the simple fact that something has been done a certain way for a long time means very little. The argument then becomes: marriage is a fundamental social institution that’s too important to lose, and gays will obviously fuck it up. So keep gays away from marriage or we’ll all be screwed.
¹¹

So maybe gay marriage will harm society, and this is a reason to ­prevent it from becoming law. This is a legitimate concern, and one that needs to be addressed. Marriage has played a very important role in society and it’s a valuable institution. It should be protected and probably promoted. So, in what way will gay marriage destroy it or prevent heterosexual marriage from continuing to function? Will it erode the institution of marriage itself? Well, whether or not Mr. Slave and Big Gay Al get married has no impact whatsoever on
my
marriage. Yet, opponents of gay marriage argue it will devalue marriage in general. Aside from the questionable implication—that it will undermine marriage because gays marrying make a mockery of it—this doesn’t seem plausible.
¹²
Gays want marriage rights because they value the institution and want in on it. Heterosexuals will still be able to marry (and divorce) as they always have. Maybe it’s about the children?

Mrs. Garrison is quick to point out to the governor that if gays are allowed to marry, then they’ll also want adoption rights. Think of the children! TV talking head Bill O’Reilly has made the same case, arguing that nature made marriage between a man and woman because they’re best suited to raise children.
¹³
The one small problem with this claim is that all existing data fail to show that kids raised in families with gay parents are harmed, disadvantaged, or otherwise maladjusted by the fact.
¹⁴
Some of the concerns themselves seem ­ludicrous: these children will have a distorted sense of sexual identity, people say.
¹⁵
But again, no study has shown this to be the case. People also argue that these children will suffer from social isolation or ­ridicule. But is this a good argument? The fact that Mrs. Garrison is willing to rip on Stan and Kyle’s “freak egg” because it has two daddies is her problem, not the egg’s or gay parents’ problem. Consider her reasoning: the egg can’t be raised by gay parents because, if it is, then she and other people like her will pick on it, causing it to be ­maladjusted. This then proves that gay parents can’t raise healthy children!

In fact, it would undoubtedly be better for a child of gay parents if her parents weren’t stigmatized by society, with their commitment publicly recognized and secured through a system of rights and privileges. This advances moral progress rather than giving in to bigotry and hatred. If marriage really is about fitness as parents, then where’s the test for straight parents that would guarantee they are qualified to have children? Did Butters’ parents have to demonstrate their fitness as parents before they could fuck him up?

The argument that’s by far the most popular and many people think is decisive against gay marriage is based on the idea of a “slippery slope.” It goes like this: if you won’t deny gays the right to marry because gender’s not a good reason to limit marriage rights, then you have to reject all limitations on marriage. So if we allow gays to marry, then we’ll have to allow polygamy, polyandry, and even incestuous marriage. Who knows, somebody might even want to marry their cat!
¹⁶
This argument might seem sound because its adherents don’t see a way to distinguish between gay marriage and other more “questionable” types of relationships. Allowing one means you must allow them all. But this is not true, for a number of reasons.

First, gay marriage is different from these other types of marriage in this important way: there’s no foreseeable harm from gay marriage, whereas polygamy and incestuous marriage harm the social good. We could imagine arguments parallel to those against gay marriage opposing the Supreme Court’s ruling in
Loving v. Virginia
(1967) in which the court ruled anti-interracial marriage legislation unconstitutional. But no reasonable person would have taken this seriously. Gay marriage should stand or fall on its own merits, not as a result of the hyped and unjustified fears of its detractors, even if they are such stand-up citizens as Mrs. Garrison.