The idea that any two people can not get married is, while accepted by many, is transparently discriminatory. There is absolutely no reason that two people--any two people--should be able to get married. What effect will it have on a happily or unhappily married couple if two members of the same gender are allowed to marry? Absolutely none
Once upon a time, interracial marriage was not allowed. A black person could not legally marry a white person in many areas of the United States. Thanks to Loving v. Virginia, rules banning interracial marriage are considered unconstitutional. According to the wikipedia entry (yes I am lazy), the court had the following opinion:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Looking at their justification for the decision, one could replace the word race with homophobia and the entire decision would still be well founded.
A New York court of appeals claims that I have taken a leap here:
[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.
However, this does not refute my position in any way. YES, we have had more time to get used to racism. This is indeed why it isn't realistic to expect the same-sex marriage movement to gain leverage over night. However, in no way does this mean that it is right. I am not labeling everyone a bigot for naively using the current definition of bigot. However, the current definition is clearly unfair, and anyone against changing or at least creating a different term--such as "civil union" is a bigot. They are denying rights to one group that apply to another group.
This idea that marriage is a sacred institution is absolutely insane. People have abused marriage for years. People marry for many reasons other than love. For example money or connections. Other people get married based on arranged marriages. The government has absolutely no right to tell people who can marry whom. The entire issue is completely based on bigotry and those against gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
At one point, it was considered okay for the government to tell white people they couldn't marry black people. I hope that one day, the government decides it is not okay to tell 2 men or 2 women who they can't marry. What was the rationale for not allowing interracial marriage originally? Probably that future generations would be corrupted by such sin? Sound familiar?
Barack Obama is a terrific candidate-probably the best candidate I've seen in my young life time. I realize that from his perspective, it would not make sense to talk about banning the bans of gay marriage as the majority of Americans do not agree with this.
This is where the answer lies however: on a small scale. We must elect leaders on local levels who are in favor of legalizing gay marriage throughout. Biden said in the VP debate that he favored "civil unions" but not marriage, as marriage is a religous issue. Okay, I can accept that, but I think that "favored" has to be changed to "required." It is understandable that with 2 wars, an economy in trouble, global warming, and high gas prices among other issues, that gay marriage takes a back seat. But while the gay rights movement may not affect as many people as the civil rights movement, we need to support the movement just as much. We need a Martin Luther King.
No comments:
Post a Comment