In a witty post, Arthur Silber agrees with Hillary Clinton for "doing the devil's work". Arthur cites this article:

Speaking last Thursday to homosexual activists at a New York fundraiser for the Empire State Pride Agenda, Clinton called the Bush-supported effort to protect marriage as "taking away rights and undermining the ability of Americans to live their own lives."

I don't particularly disagree with Arthur's view on gay marriage, but may I be permitted to inject some perverse logic into this debate?

At the risk of committing an Easterbrook gaffe, I too want to play the Devil's Advocate here. When I saw gay marriage emerge in the mid 1990s, it struck me as divisive and manufactured for political ends. It simply did not have much mainstream support, and it seemed almost calculated to inflame the Culture War by stirring up passions over an issue of immediate relevance only to a minority of homosexuals. But it grew and grew and grew, and is so emotional now that I almost hesitate to discuss it. But that would elevate cowardice over blogging. It would be wrong for me to engage in self censorship. We should all take to heart Jeff Jarvis's words on the Easterbrook affair:

I worry about the fate of free speech in this country -- not because of governmental interference, not because of that most overused word, "censorship," but because people in power are skittish about opinions, terrified of controversy, cowed by political correctness, and most of all driven to avoid at all costs the ultimate sin of the age: offending

I hate to inject logic into something so emotional, but homosexuals are already allowed to marry. They are allowed to marry either heterosexuals or other homosexuals. The only restriction is that the partner must be of a different sex. That does not mean that the marriage is necessarily heterosexual, or between heterosexuals. Thus, it is not logically accurate to say that only heterosexuals are allowed to marry.

In an earlier post, I complained facetiously that by not being allowed to marry myself, I was being discriminated against as a single person. Why should not a single person be allowed to marry himself and derive the same "benefits" of marriage that two people derive? Why are two persons more worthy of protection than one? What is the magic of coupling, anyway?

Just as homosexuals are not barred from marriage, nor are they barred from becoming pregnant. That does not guarantee that they will be able to become pregnant, though. But the fact is that men cannot get pregnant. Does this biological fact discriminate against men? Does pregnancy (with its concomitant tendency to render women vulnerable and in need of some contractual legal protection) offer a reason for marriage? Is there something about the different biological natures of men and women which makes them uniquely predisposed to enter into marriage? If there is, then is it necessarily discrimination for the law to treat such couples differently than couples of the same sex?

What about same sex heterosexual marriage? As a practical matter, I recognize that there will not immediately be long lines at the county clerks' offices in the event that marriage is opened up to same sex couples, but is anyone seriously suggesting that there be proof of homosexuality in order to marry a spouse of the same sex? Why shouldn't two women living together who want a tax break or insurance benefits simply marry? How about two criminals who want to prevent each other from being forced to talk to the authorities and marry so they can invoke the marital privilege? Or two men who simply want a tax break, or company insurance benefits? Why the hell not? Should prisoners be allowed to marry each other?

Seen this way, same sex marriage would do more than merely extend to homosexuals rights currently held only by heterosexuals.

It would allow any person to marry any other person. (Well, I suppose there would still have to be two people -- but is that any more fair than saying they have to be of the opposite sex? I guess they would both spouses would have to be alive, and above the age of consent.)

True, it would be a new right. But it would not be a new right solely available for homosexual consumption.

It would be a new right for everybody.

I guess I just made a new argument for same sex marriage. Which side am I on, anyway?

Is Hillary being inclusive enough?

Somehow, I still feel left out....