A Slate article says that opposition to gay marriage is more about gender anxiety than sexual orientation anxiety. In other words, sexism is the culprit, not homophobia. I think it's a good theory. But the author's conclusions are terrible. He thinks we shouldn't fight sexism (he terms it more sentimentally--"deeply ingrained desire for stable sex roles") and we shouldn't "attack [marriage foes] as hateful bigots."

First, this "deeply ingrained desire for stable sex roles." Is it more noble than a deeply ingrained desire for uniform sexuality? Hell no! Gender distinctions are an interesting thing to study, but the unstudied theories of gender distinctions-- those vague ill-thought out "deeply ingrained desires"-- always screw women over. Nostalgia for the way things were is bad for women, because things used to suck for women. So obviously, we should fight ideas borne only out of sex-role-anxiety. This author thinks anti-marriage feelings are one of these. But instead of confronting the issue head on, he suggests that for gays "it would be better to avoid a war on two fronts and shift focus to civil unions and domestic partnerships." Yeah, maybe better for gay men.

Second, about the hateful bigots. I agree that some anti-marriage people are not hateful. A few are just ignorant, perhaps homeschooled. But if you've ever met a gay person and you don't think that person should have equal rights, you're a hateful bigot. You've attached a face to an issue, and you've decided against the face. In favor of... traditional gender roles? Sorry, that's a little abstract. And sexist. You're a hateful bigot, and I will attack you as such.