Iowa and Vermont both legalized gay marriage within the last week, and the United States as a whole has moved a little bit closer to the ideal of "equality" that we pride ourselves on but have yet to reach as a result. I've been keeping an eye on the news articles that are coming out about the issue, and I came across this one today. I really do believe that it (the legalization of gay marriage at the Federal level) is inevitable because it is, inevitably, the right thing to do in a country that prides itself on democratic principals like freedom of choice and equality for all.
Of course, as the article points out, it is going to take a long time, and it won't come without continued struggle, but two states coming to the decision independently and within four days of one another is a big advance in the right direction.
I found this quote particularly interesting:
"It's really clear," asserts Maggie Gallagher, of the National Organization for Marriage, "that, if you leave it up to the American people, they would say, to make a marriage, you need a husband and a wife, and we don't want politicians messing with it."
Yeah, they don't want politicians to mess with it. They want the politicians to agree and protect it, though. One of my biggest issues with the conservatives' argument against gay marriage is that it will undermine the "institution" of marriage (which, by their definition, is classified as such because it is between members of the opposite sex). I'm sorry, but how does something that goes on between two people that you don't even know have any effect on your own marriage? Does it undermine the meaning of your marriage? If someone else's choices and decisions and freedoms have an effect on your marriage, then maybe you need to take a good long look at your life and figure out why you're letting others define things for you.
When it comes right down to it, marriage is a legal agreement between two people who have agreed to spend their lives together. It comes with tax, medical, inheritance and other legal benefits. The cultural definition, of course, is complicated by social and religious tradition. Perhaps it is just the rebel in me, but I think that there are many a social/religious tradition without which we would be better off as a society. Besides, this is supposed to be a free country. Free. As in our decisions are not made for us. In reality, unfortunately, our decisions are being made for us all the damn time, but that doesn't mean that we should just accept that that reality will never change.
In my mind, tradition should not dictate the future. Just because it has always been one way does not mean that it is right. Denying a group of citizens basic rights based on superficial things like sexual preference is discrimination. How can it not be? How is it any different than denying citizens basic rights based on gender or skin color? The answer is that it is no different, and it goes against the fundamental freedoms and rights guaranteed to all citizens by our Constitution.
2 comments:
Hey Jessica,
Just to point out, I don't think the argument is that recognition of homosexual marriage would affect marriage on a personal level (see your discussion of interfering with an individual's own marriage), but rather it is the effect on marriage as a global (or at least national) institution. Just on the surface, there is an effect to marriage on a whole: it is redefined. That said, there are arguably individual effects as well--you obviously don't buy them, though.
I just wanted to point out that potential inaccuracy in your framing of the argument.
That said, it probably is inevitable.
Post a Comment