I’ve issued a challenge at Plumb Bob Blog, my political/social blog, to progressives and atheists to see which of them can answer cogently. I’m giving away the secret up front: this is about the semantic contortion that leads them to call long-term cohabiting between gays “marriage,” and insist on marital rights and appurtenances that apply thereto. I will describe the challenge here, but for the sake of keeping the discussion in one place ask you to comment over there.
I want you to form an argument that (1) explains why you oppose what I’m about to propose, but (2) cannot immediately be offered back as an argument against gay “marriage” rights.
Any answer that contains an insult will be deleted out of hand, and I will not let the author know. I reserve the right to determine what constitutes an insult.
Here’s the challenge:
I want to marry the birch tree in my front yard. I love it dearly, it has faithfully provided me shade for decades. I want to marry it legally, and I want all the financial and social advantages that appertain to marriage. The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the laws; the law of my state does not permit me to marry the birch tree the way others marry their spouse of choice, so my Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated.
Why should I not be granted the right under the law to marry my birch tree?
The challenge is on. I pre-empt two possible answers at the blog, and supply a helpful image of the beloved birch, so again, come on over and take your best shot.