Smart Bombs: Idaho can’t redefine bigotry

State leaders hoping to cling to their gay marriage prohibitions have been reduced to laughable arguments in the service of discrimination.

Cue the straight men.

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, in briefs filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, argued that marriage must be limited to opposite-sex couples because it results in “fewer children who experience fatherlessness and motherlessness.” So would banning no-fault divorce, which has led to a proliferation of single-parent households, but a supposedly “pro-family” Legislature can’t be stirred to action.

The governor’s legal team also said if there’s a right to “marry the person of one’s choice” – now a controversial concept? – people would have to be allowed polygamous and incestuous marriages, too. Um, what? Opposite-sex couples are allowed to choose their partners and that hasn’t led to brothers marrying sisters. Why? It’s against the law, just as it is in states that have legalized gay marriage. We’ve witnessed no onslaught of incest and polygamy in Washington state.

The implicit argument is once you go “deviant,” there’s no turning back. Indiana, however, bans same-sex marriage but allows first cousins to marry. Why isn’t that marriage law considered a slippery slope?

But look, gay and lesbian readers, you need not be offended, because in other arguments filed with the court, Idaho officials want you to know this isn’t personal. Never mind that it’s about the kids when they argue against gay marriage, but it’s about freedom (and re-election) when they forgo laws that make breaking up families more difficult. Never mind that they can’t be bothered to prove that children fare worse in households run by gay couples.

Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, in his legal filings, argued that the state’s marriage laws don’t even discriminate. “They permit a man to marry a woman, or a woman to marry a man, regardless of sexual orientation.” Sure do. A gay man could marry a straight woman. A lesbian could marry a straight man. These odd couples could even produce children if they closed their eyes and used their imaginations.

Hence, Wasden argues, “Idaho’s marriage laws treat men and women equally.” Yeah, equally bad, if they’re gay.

National Football League thug Ray Rice can deck his fiancée, but they can still get married. Why? Because they could make babies. Meanwhile, a loving same-sex couple already raising well-adjusted children must be blocked from matrimony.

Of course, we know that not all couples want to make babies. Some might even have sex for the fun of it. This is all perfectly legal. Such couples can even get married, though we’re told that Idaho’s marriage law is all about the kids. Wasden’s legal team anticipated this argument, saying those couples belong to a class (opposite-sex couples) that can procreate the old-fashioned way. Same-sex couples do not.

In Idaho’s mind, treating people as members of a biological class isn’t discrimination, even if it leads to individuals being treated as second-class citizens. We know biologically that elderly straight couples cannot have children, but Idaho allows them to become newlyweds because they’re in the right class. The state then confers the myriad benefits that come with a marriage certificate. Yet, nobody tries to write a law stopping them, unless the couple is gay.

Despite all of this, Idaho officials say it is isn’t personal; it isn’t discrimination.

And they say it with a straight face.