I have previously written about and spoken of my support of Marriage Equality and equal rights for the LGBTQ community. So, it is easy to understand that I was and am elated about President Obama's recent endorsement of Same-sex marriage. This announcement was historic, as Mr. Obama became the first sitting President to issue such a sweeping endorsement. The President has already made history as the 1st African American President and as the first President in several decades to sign into law sweeping health care reform. That said, I am under no illusion that Mr. Obama is perfect or that he is everything we liberals want him to be, but he has displayed undeniable courage and exemplary leadership through out his first term (4 more years!). For Mr. Obama's service to the LGBTQ community, and more importantly: his contributions to overall equality, I say, 'thank you and Bravo Mr. President'.
Which brings me to arguments against same-sex marriage...
While wthe Melissa Harris-Perry Show the Saturday before last, I came across an interesting counter-argument to the assertion that 'traditional marriage' is immutable and hasn't been changed in some hundreds of years (and thus shouldn't be changed). The discussion by Melissa and her guests focused on the fact that marriage today is not the direct descendant of marriages past, but an evolution and a drastic alteration from its prior forms. The argument followed that marriage used to be an arrangement of convenience and patriarchy and was often puppeted by parents and/relatives. Marriage was not a union between two loving couples, but a societal expectation and a vehicle by which one could advance in society. Marriages were also a male-dominated arrangement by which men called all of the shots and women were expected to be seen and not heard.
Obviously, marriage has changed in the western world and is seen as a partnership of equals (for the most part, though patriarchal dominance most assuredly persists in many marriages). Marriage is a consistently oscillating institution and is a seemingly fragile one at that. The argument that marriage is an inexorable institution defined by an unchangeable mandate from God, falls flat in the face of logic (and thus falls flat as an excuse to deny the Homosexuals the right to marry).
But more importantly, separate is simply not equal. One cannot simply say, 'give gays and lesbians all equal rights, excluding marriage' without falling into paradox. Marriage equality is essential to ensuring that the LGBTQ community receive equal rights commensurate with those that heterosexuals receive. Un-married Homosexual couples have to pay thousands more to raise children, file taxes, buy health insurance and do not receive the same Social Security benefits and retirement benefits as many heterosexual couples: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all
Many on the opposing side of history will make the claim that states have all voted down same-sex marriage when it is put to the ballot. This claim is fair to the extent that one believes that basic civil rights should be put to ballot. If one believes erroneously that one group of people should subjugate and discriminate against another group at the ballot box. We have already seen that separate cannot be equal when it comes to marriage equality, so a rational thinker cannot countenance a return to the antiquated ideas that spawned Miscegenation and intolerance. This image from Wikipedia documents that many states in the South hadn't allowed Blacks and Whites to marry until after June 12, 1967: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_miscegenation.svg. Thusly, we cannot rely on the average voter to come to the conclusion that segregation and discrimination are wrong. Sometimes the courts and the legislatures of various states have to push the populace to the right conclusion.
Thanks for reading!
All the best,
Cameron
No comments:
Post a Comment