Almost Equal Rights?
Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
I think I had a discussion with J over the icq over the issue of same sex marriages quite a long time back. I was undecided then but gradually found myself drifting towards the proponent camp.
As in the case of Brown Vs Board of Education, the movement against same sex marriages is another case of discrimination and segregation. In my opinion, religious stuff aside, it’s a civil rights issue.
Another article in the Economist: The case for gay marriage also talked about the issue of civil rights.
Mr Bush says that he is acting to protect “the most fundamental institution of civilisation” from what he sees as “activist judges” who in Massachusetts early this month confirmed an earlier ruling that banning gay marriage is contrary to their state constitution.
Why should two consenting loving adults be denied this "most fundamental institution of civilisation"? Why should they settle for "almost-equal rights"?
5 Comments:
At May 29, 2004 at 8:20 AM,
f said…
Good one Saizou! Now, let me post a selection of letters, some of which are noteworthy.
From The Economist Mar 11th 2004 (print edition)
Gay marriage, debatedSIR – You say that homosexual marriage should be legalised, based not on any economic rationale but on vague notions of “equality” and “liberty” (“The case for gay marriage”, February 28th). You bring up the disingenuous argument of 1960s race laws that existed primarily in the South. That discrimination involved a repression of civil liberties based solely on ethnicity. Strong economic cases were made that involved increasing the scope of economic freedoms for blacks and women and allowing heterosexual couples, regardless of ethnicity, to marry since the government has an overwhelming interest in the procreation of its citizens.
In the South, we are stereotyped as homophobes and Bible thumpers but most of us do not view homosexuals as second-class citizens. However, gay relationships should be viewed as second-class in comparison with heterosexual marriages. We do not believe that America has vested economic, political and cultural interests in the extension of marriage to homosexuals.
John Fioranelli
Oxford, Mississippi
SIR – One of the pillars of western civilisation is the notion that citizens should be deprived of their liberty only when it threatens the liberty of another. Gay marriage clearly does not pose such a danger. Like those who opposed Jim Crow, apartheid or the enfranchisement of women, when each was controversial, your support for gay marriage will surely end up on the right side of history.
Matthew Murphy
Houston, Texas
SIR – I agree with your appeal to J.S. Mill's “harm principle” on the matter of gay marriage. Should a set of loving and consenting adults wish to exercise such a right, no harm could be done to anyone else. I see no reason to stop at gay marriage. What of another traditionally controversial matter: polygamy. If, say, three or more loving and consenting adults wish to wed, how should it be denied if modern society is to be consistent, and the principles of harm and equality embraced?
Maximilien Valente
Tuscon, Arizona
SIR – The support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage may be one of the rare times George Bush has got it right. To legalise gay marriage would be to give too wide or simplistic an interpretation to equality rights and go too far in undermining collective or societal wellbeing, to which these rights must sometimes be subordinated. Gay marriage will, among other things, erode a fundamental institution, namely the family, because marriage often is about children. Furthermore, although marriage has been weakened, nothing proves that expanding it would actually make it stronger or that gays would be less inclined than their heterosexual counterparts to divorce or cheat.
Dimitrios Nassios
Montreal
SIR – Your case for gay marriage misses the point. The real issue is whether its people or its courts will rule America. The vast majority of Americans do not support gay marriage. For the courts and elected officials to force this change upon everyone else is profoundly undemocratic.
A federal marriage amendment that forbade the courts from requiring gay marriage but permitted the people to enact it through referendums or their legislatures is most desirable. But if you choose to support taking this path through the courts, then you are advocating a more noxious form of inequality, one that grants unequal power over an entire society to the special interests favoured by an activist elite judiciary over the interests of the masses.
Jeffrey Burk
Washington, DC
SIR – You implicitly assume that the quintessential feature of marriage is sexual gratification. Wrong. Procreation and socialisation of children within the family provide the sole justification for the institution's unique status in society. The stigmatisation of homosexuality is unacceptable but the contemporary urge to equate homosexual and heterosexual unions probably has its origins in the inability of modern societies to live comfortably with the phenomenon of homosexuality. To offer marriage reflects the search for legitimisation of homosexual unions—but there are other and better paths to the same end.
Richard Tilly
Dettelbach, Germany
SIR – Allowing gays the right to marry will not weaken the institution, it will surely strengthen it. Those who are opposed cite many reasons, however they are of one nature; a punishment for not thinking as they do. Heterosexual marriages serve mainly as legal and social recognition of the relationship between two people. We should certainly bring gays into the fold as quickly as possible. It will remove another artificial distinction used to discriminate against people who do not reflect our own conditions.
Eric Dickhaus
Montebenichi, Italy
SIR – I know the couple on the cover. They are a perfect choice—and not just because they are good looking. Ian and Daniel are raising two children in a loving, stable, suburban home. What could be more American, or a better demonstration of conservative values? I urge anyone who is against gay marriage to look in the mirror. Why deny someone else the same right you enjoy? Purge the hatred from your heart. The right of gays to marry is self-evident.
Devorah Blachor
Jerusalem
At May 29, 2004 at 8:29 AM,
change said…
i want Gmail.please help me
At May 29, 2004 at 8:33 AM,
Neko said…
most fundamental right of civilisation? haha!
well, i guess civilisation is somewhere in the West, luv. Many societies engage in 'gay' practices as part of their rite to adulthood, but alongside a female 'wife'..
Anyway, to me, i guess it's the consequences of the action. It is a definite shift, once gay marriages are the norm, what's there to stop marriages with female animals if you're a man? So playing the devil's advocate here...
The reconciliation with the highly charged racial past black/white divide, is Different from the biological argument that stands before gay marriages. Thus if male+male is acceptable, what is female+male then.
To some this may be the make or break of civilisation as civil rights pertains to the question of human socialisation, and not on biological grounds... As man tries so hard to seperate themselves from the animals, they become more similar. ( devolution? )
At May 29, 2004 at 9:32 AM,
saizou said…
but having gay marriages does not necessarily mean that it's the end of the world for male-female marriages.
it's all a matter of choice and i guess pp should be free to make those choices. it's not as though banning same sex marriages is going to make all the gays/lesbians heterosexual...
i mean...they are not going to change their sexual preference just coz they can't get married. so why stop them from getting hitched?
hmmmm....bout the female animals part..haha....i'll believe it when i see it happening. =P
At May 29, 2004 at 10:02 AM,
Neko said…
well, what i meant was like, yes the product of gay marriages would be considered as a better proposition for some. Heck, no more unwanted pregnancy cases, no more trying to understand the other gender roles, no more wondering of what to wear the next morning to work. All sounds good and dandy..
But, the 'end of civilisation' would be the need to create new laws which accepts gay marriages: laws entailing custodial rights, laws pertaining to legal/illegal adoption, ending the once static 'civilisation'. Thus, it can, not be considered detrimental. Just saying it'll end. :P
Tho was wondering, the religious advocates would harp on the case of sodom and gomorrah, and how such practices ended the civilisation. And are there any religious gays?? hummm.... Guess that's where the tension is, you can't be both.
Well, someone is interested in the sexual arena of gays.. lol. anyway, err as for the human and animals, well.. you can read the Enquirer or those cheesy tabloids with headlines like BATboy found in a cave, NOT batman when he's younger but a hybrid.. haha, i miss those...
Post a Comment
<< Home