It looks James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal could use a handy copy of our Stylebook Supplement given his apparent confusion over what LGBT means in the same-sex marriage debate. Here’s his take on the Obama press statement regarding the new brief filed in a case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.
LGBT turns out not to be a bacon-lettuce-and-tomato sandwich with garlic but–well, we’ll let the Washington Post translate it for you:
The president said that he would “examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) couples under existing law.”
So, let’s enumerate the different types of couples:
- Couple: a boy and a girl.
- Gay couple: a boy and a boy.
- Lesbian couple: a girl and a girl.
So far, so good. “Transgender couple” is a more esoteric concept, but we suppose it might consist of a boy and a girl who wishes she were a boy, a girl and a boy who wishes he were a girl, or a boy who wishes he were a girl and a girl who wishes she were a boy. In a fairer world, transgender couples would have their own acronym to encompass all the possible combinations.
But what in the heck is a “bisexual couple”? A bisexual is a boy or a girl who likes both boys and girls. In order for a bisexual to have both a boy and a girl, the “couple” would have to consist of at least three people, possibly four. By definition, this is no longer a couple.
Is this change you can believe in? It isn’t even change you can logically conceive of.
Ah, those wits at the WSJ opinion pages. Amazing they can figure out the complexities of derivative litigation and the Madoff Ponzi Scheme, but can’t figure out what an LGBT couple would look like.
UPDATED: More explanation of the LGBT for our friends at the WSJ.