A fascinating article in USA Today on a new study by two Columbia University political science professors describes how the proportion of Catholics in a state is a great determinant of how effectively the state defends gay rights.

Want to predict which state might move next to legalize same-sex marriage? You might count Catholics. The higher their percentage of the population, the more likely the state is to… support gay rights.

This counter-intuitive finding is brought to you with a tip of two hats — mine to Mark Silk at Spiritual Politics and his to Robbie Jones who led Silk to a new study soon by be published by two Columbia University political scientists.

The main thrust of the study was to examine whether there is “pro-gay bias in policy making” (the authors conclude no) or a tyranny of local majorities “in which anti-gay majorities trump minority rights” (the authors again say no).

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Jc b.

Matt Galli, a writer from Christian Today Magazine, lays out what he perceives to be the logical and nonreligious argument against marriage equality.  While perceptive of the current state of affairs in how the debate has moved forward, Galli’s piece still falls short on the implications of marriage equality.

Galli’s argument rests on two thoughts: we’re all sinful, so Christians need to get their act together before bashing (my word, not his) gays and their fight for marital rights; and secondly, that gay people hate children.

While I agree with the first claim, that it is convenient for people who cheat on their wives (Gov. Sanford, Senator Ensign, and Newt Gingrich) to decide that the romantic thoughts of another human are impure and unworthy of state recognition, the second claim is one in which the kind of “gay” Galli suggests is the hippie, erotic, pedophile of 60’s American folklore.

He refuses to accept that LGBT citizens across the country not only desire to raise children, but have the ability to create said children, care for said children, and legally be recognized as the parents of said children. Sure, it may be more difficult of a process, but no study shows that it is any less of a loving home environment.

The arguments these zealots use to dismiss marriage equality are patently false. When Galli explains how followers of this stereotypical view of LGBT individuals are criticized and attacked, he fails to understand that views based on stereotypes (don’t let an Asian be your driver, a black man be your teller, or a woman be your manager) are to be mocked, not celebrated as the diversity that makes America great.

Whenever faced with this non-religious series of arguments, remember that they are only being used because the religious ones have been rejected, the moral ones have been rejected, and the scientific ones have been rejected. The “mom and dad” paradigm is the last wall to conquer, and if children of single parents (Barack Obama, Julie Roberts, Alicia Keys, Bill Clinton, Tom Cruise, Ed Bradley, and more) can be successful, the wall has too many cracks in it to stand.

Give Galli’s piece a chance, and upon conclusion, leave a comment on the article or simply remember how you felt upon reading his hollow words.

Because, to answer Galli’s title’s rhetorical question: “Yes, it’s over.”

Photo courtesy of Flickr user The Travelling Spotlight.