In order to move closer towards a more ideal society, we as "good samaritans" have to learn to accept people for their differences. Although Americans are inching forward to having this goal come to fruition, I want to reflect back on the gay marriage debacle of California. If I were a California resident, I would have voted no on Proposition 8. The only reason that marriage in the United States, and to a greater extent the world, is currently defined as an institution between a man and a woman is due to religious reasons. This imposition of the church into the legal affairs of the state is strictly unconstitutional. The fact that many "non-believers" get married for either love and/or the "fringe benefits" included purports that marriage has become more of a legal matter than a religious tradition.
While applause is due for those politicians proposing civil unions, I'd like to highlight that this notion of separate but equal doesn't work. Didn't we learn that in history class from the infamous overturn of Plessy v Ferguson by Brown v Board of Education? Now, I am in no way trying to equate the plight of gays to that of African-Americans because they are two distinct groups. I just want to point out that whenever a group of people, gays, are being oppressed by social norms, it is a hindrance to a multicultural society.
Now, this belief that the church has a right to say who gets married or not would be considered by many as quite absurd. They have the right to not perform ceremonies for or recognize the marriage of homosexuals, but they do not have the right to deny this legal conjoining of parties to anyone based upon sexual orientation. Since marriage has more to do with the benefits you get from the state than religious identity, why do people have such a problem with this redefining of "marriage?"
While I don't agree with the people that voted yes on Proposition 8, I don't want to be disagreeable. Their belief of wanting to keep the definition of marriage in it's "proper place" is fine, but unfortunately since the government has adopted this word "marriage" to apply to unions between a man and a woman and given them certain rights and privileges, it has become a part of the government. If we want to keep "marriage" at its root definition, then that is fine. However, the government will then have to find another term to apply to all unions between heterosexuals and homosexuals since "marriage" can only apply to one group of people. Practically speaking, it would seem that applying "marriage" to homosexual couples would be a lot easier.
While this injustice done to Gay community may not affect many of us directly, many would suggest the fight for this cause also promotes a more social-egalitarian and multicultural state. Giving gays separate but equal rights such as "Civil Unions" just reaffirms that this minority group isn't accepted nationally.
Sometimes people go against the status quo even if it benefits a group we are not a part of. This need to fight against status quo is expressed brilliantly in a famous poem by German theologian, Martin Niemoller. It gives the consequences of not going against the status quo; it begins:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
The most poignant stanza comes at the end where Niemoller writes, “When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.” As Niemoller suggests, sometimes we have to go against the status quo and fight for a change; a change for a better America.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Taylor, July 20, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Travis, July 21, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bill Mickney , July 23, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Daisy Barns , July 23, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Teriss , July 25, 2009
It is so "a non issue today" in Canada and there was no effect on mainstream society. Gay marriage is accepted as a normal way of life, and it is so appreciated by the gay community.
Spain, Canada and the UK recognize not only diversity in minorities but allow all to peacefully co-exist. I thought that was what sharing this world was all about. To not allow gay people the right to marry you are denying their very existence, you affect their livelihood, their spousal benefits, and those affects, negatively impact their very lives.
Gay marriage not only allows diversity but supports the democratic structure of freedoms and rights for all minorities and races.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Taylor, July 25, 2009
One of the ideas a friend of mine said to me as to why Canada is so far ahead of the curve than us in a lot of social issues is because of its size. Canada has 1/10th our population so it's far easier to pass laws and promote change. People are also more close knit there as a whole than here. We'll be coming up on 350 million people here pretty soon.
I applaud the Canadian people for their relentless vigor though. Crazy canucks
-
- +0
-
-
written by Cory, July 25, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Agnostic, July 25, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lindsey, July 26, 2009
I support gay marriage by the way.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Flairplay INC, July 28, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Teriss, July 29, 2009
Dear Taylor:
Canada’s “land size” does not impact on its legislation on gay marriage. It is true that most of our population exists along the USA border but that has much to do with history.
If you took your argument that our occupation of our land size makes us more liberal than the US, then Russia must also be a very liberal society.
Your statement” people are more close knit there as a whole than here” is also a misconception. Actually population density forces people to co-habitat and increases the integration of different cultures no matter where they exist.
The reason gay marriage legislation was passed in Canada and why it failed in California was that we have much less religious control in our government. We have a democracy that is not rooted in religion but more rooted in our charter of rights which treats people equally under the Law and it is enforced.
Our cultures are very much the same and historically both countries were colonized by the same cultural backgrounds, which was and still is now a multi-cultural diverse society. There are misconceptions of what Canada is by some and that having civil rights
and equality somehow translates to a negative attribute is a very conservative viewpoint.
Canada also has pay equity for women and minorities and hate crimes against prejudicial attacks on different cultures including the gay culture.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Teriss, July 29, 2009
Phil you seem somewhat detached by what society is today, it does include gay people.
-
- +0
-
-
The discrimnation faced to people of gay, bisexual, and transgender orientation is no different than the deep rooted racism experienced prior to this century.