Gay marriage, the civil rights of today
I spotted this letter in The Daily Campus (UCONN) student newspaper. It's nice to see that many of the college students today are so much more open to our community than when I went to school.
By Colin Megill
Blacks used to be "different." White people used to categorize them, in their infinite xenophobia, as "not what they were." I'm Baptist, straight, white and for the record, I'm ignoring the assumption I shouldn't judge. I despise, with every fiber of my being, the narrow-minded, phobic population of the 20th century the same way generations of the future will despise us.
Throughout America's history there has always and seemingly will always be a group of people who are a minority. The slaves, the immigrants from Europe, the Asian invasion, the children of former slaves fighting for what they already were, equal; and now homosexuals.
Oppression is America's hard liquor: Every time it gets hammered and insults someone it swears it's done forming regrets and swears off the vice forever. We all know how that goes; we're college students. It's so easy to swear off alcohol while you're still suffering the hangover, but America hasn't been out to the bar in a while.
Traditional American xenophobia (fear of those who are unknown) parallels a fear of "contamination." Fear of contamination is the apprehension, for example, if black children (assumed, incorrectly, inferior) were allowed in white public schools, it would devalue the education system. Similarly, those who oppose gay marriage fear if homosexuals are allowed to join under the term "marriage," the institution's value will deteriorate. The resultant of this fear has always been regrettable injustice.
The current President Bush has a quote: "America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities."
The definition President Bush is defending is already obsolete. Its redefinition occurred when the term became connected to the state instead of the church. A marriage is no longer only a binding of two people in the religious sense. The "sanctity" that is to be preserved under Bush's plan is one which exists also under the cold and official, not just the ideological backing both he and religion affords it.
There are obvious contradictions between respecting the rights of homosexuals and protecting marriage. If homosexual couples are allowed only to have a civil union, which affords all of the benefits of a marriage without it actually being one, then their rights have not been respected. To avoid inequality, marriage licenses must be given to both types of couples, both homosexual and heterosexual.
In a perfect world, marriage would be simply a word, and civil unions would be separate, but equal. We've tried in America, separate but equal, and we've obviously not learned from our mistakes. The word "marriage" is symbolic of two people being joined together. If we create a new category of "civil union," we only serve to categorize homosexual marriages as "the joining of two... well, something different anyway." We serve to dehumanize. We serve the same purposes as were fought against in the civil rights movement.
Though there are convincing arguments against the illegalization of gay marriages, there are also arguments for why laws should be passed toward instating it.
If marriage started as a religious institution, why did the state recognize it and not other religious events? Why not get a tax break on your first communion? The reason is marriage is seen as a social institution, which improves and stabilizes society and should be available, as an instrument of stabilization, to all of society. With a legitimization of the homosexual lifestyle by the state, society becomes more stable and everyone is the better for it.
Religion sees marriage as a joining of two people, recognized in the eyes of the Lord. Recognition and legitimization by the state is unnecessary for a true believer, and only exists for social reasons. If homosexuals do not receive the religious legitimacy, only the social legitimacy, who does gay marriage hurt? Homosexuals threaten people who are insecure in their religious beliefs the same way they threaten people who are uncomfortable in their own sexuality. If you're truly secure, why does it matter what others do, if they're not hurting anyone else? Enter John Stewart Mill.
To notice legislatively there is a difference between gay marriages and heterosexual marriages is to notice inherent separation in people who quite probably have no choice in their difference. It serves only to confirm the fears of those who flaunt their close-mindedness on signs that say "gay marriage is not in God's plan." Well, if it's not, then inequality is.
Leave a comment