Another Opinion
I came accross this opinion column in the Collegiate Times.
Equality for all includes marriage
by Michael Sutphin
In response to yesterday’s column, “Time for marriage and government to divorce” (CT, Nov. 20), I would like to point out that although the author has a valid point about marriage, his approach and use of negative stereotypes trivializes the issue.
He says, “It’s time to end the debate about marriage once and for all. Then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, without worrying about running into stupid protests full of lisping voices or shouted hallelujahs.”
Sure, there should be a separation of church and state, and one way to address the issue of gay marriage is to rename the institution all together. Every couple, same- or opposite-sex, could enter a legal contract we could call, say, a civil union.
This way, religious types would not be offended by so-called militant homosexuals who want to impede on their sacred institution of marriage. And lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people would be appeased because they would have the same rights as heterosexuals.
The Netherlands, for example, adopted this tactic, and it seems to be working there.
This isn’t, however, the best approach for the United States. For one, marriage in this country is already divided. We have civil marriage, where both individual state governments and the federal government recognize over 1000 rights, benefits, privileges and protections that come with it.We also have religious marriage, in which religious groups are already given the sole decision to marry or not to marry gay and lesbian couples.
The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender lobby is not fighting for inclusion in religious marriage. It is, however, fighting for civil marriage equality.The Supreme Court of Massachusetts tried to make this clear Wednesday when it explained, “Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution. No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage.”
What the Massachusetts high court did was entirely warranted — if not late. There is no argument against civil marriage equality for LGBT people in which the arguer is not either ignorant or downright bigoted. And to say homosexuals should simply stop whining about their problems is to say we should just let discrimination continue. Silence is never the answer to a problem.
Margaret Cho, the famous bisexual comedian, beautifully explained the situation yesterday. She compared our present debate over gay marriage to previous forms of discrimination, and pointed out that the heterosexual mainstream has adopted a great deal from gay culture, like television shows, hairstyles and even a fashion sense.
“It’s like when whites stole rock and roll from blacks in the 50s, and all the kids were dancing to Little Richie, ‘We love your music, but please don’t drink from that water fountain’,” she said.
The same applies to marriage. We live in a country that touts freedom and equality for all as the cornerstone of our national beliefs, but we don’t afford something so basic as the right to marry who we love to a large and visible segment of our population.
Trivializing the issue will not work and trying to shut up the LGBT community with weak jabs playing on hateful and outdated stereotypes does more harm than good.
This is one of the major social issues of our time and it affects millions of Americans. Please, no matter which side you stand on the issue of gay marriage, take your position with respect and consideration for others.
Leave a comment