HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Feb 19, 2004 One of the undeniable phenomena of the last year has been the increasing presence and acceptance of gays and lesbians in our culture. From the trivial (Bravo’s wildly popular “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”) to the significant (the Supreme Court’s invalidation of state sodomy laws), 2003-2004 has been a banner year for gays. As the victories pile up, we find ourselves careening towards the inevitable showdown over the ultimate prize: gay marriage. For both sides, the debate is a passionate one. Advocates of gay marriage argue that it is their right and that the legal recognition of homosexual couples is one of the final steps on the road to full equality. The more extreme opponents of gay marriage, on the other hand, view it as an abomination: biological incongruities (to be polite) and an inherently promiscuous nature render gays unfit for the institution of marriage. Both sides are right, if only partly so. First off, the promiscuity argument, in addition to being insulting to gays in committed relationships, doesn’t stand up to any degree of scrutiny. With heterosexual marriages still failing at an appalling rate of nearly 50% (according to 2001 data), one can’t say that adultery or promiscuity are somehow issues peculiar to gay relationships. However, the cry for “rights” from the advocacy crowd is also flimsy. The problem with this approach is that, somewhere along the way, it will have to involve the redefinition of marriage. For centuries, if not millennia, and across countless cultures, marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. This is not an exclusively Judeo-Christian concept, nor is not some recent creation of Jerry Falwell or any other anti-gay bogeyman. It is, for the marriage advocates, an unfortunate reality that cannot be dismissed with a simple claim for “rights.” The characteristics of a successful marriage - happiness, commitment, and companionship - have always been part of the package, but not the definition itself. In short, laying claim to some of the traits of marriage doesn’t entitle one to a change in the definition thereof. To further the point: if I were to say that I am patriotic, have a keen interest in history and historical preservation, enjoy volunteering, and have a distant relative who fought at Bunker Hill, I would still not be able to join the Daughters of the American Revolution. Barring some lengthy procedures and the miracle of modern medicine, I would be inadequately equipped, biologically speaking, to join the DAR. And claiming discrimination or my right to free association would not strengthen my argument. The DAR serves a certain segment of the population; I would have to find an alternative outlet for my interests. Which segues to the issue of civil unions, which polls show to have much broader support than gay marriage. The marriage advocates, however, insist that the unions are insufficient – a consolation prize that would never pass legal muster when it counted the most. With this impasse as a backdrop, the talk of a constitutional amendment is picking up steam. This aspect has, oddly enough, made for some strange bedfellows (no pun intended), with both conservatives and gay marriage advocates coming out (see previous) against the idea. The opposition of the latter is obvious, while the former are singing the usual tune of states’ rights. I think the conservatives are missing the point this time around. For the past thirty years, critical social issues have been forced upon the entire country by activist courts while conservatives blindly clung to the notions of states’ rights and strict interpretation of the Constitution. (Like Charlie Brown kicking the football, conservatives seem to believe that Lucy won’t pull it away this time around.) For the idea of a constitutional amendment is not so much about telling Massachusetts that they CAN’T recognize gay marriage as it is about the courts telling Alabama that they HAVE to do the same. Mark my words that the latter is bound to happen, especially with events like what we are seeing out in San Francisco dominating the news. I will watch “Queer Eye.” Heck, I’ve even tried a cosmo. But to redefine the basic building block of our society, mainly for selfish reasons and without much thought as to the possible ramifications? Sorry, but I can’t buy that. Even in a banner year like this one. ------------ About Matthew Bastian: Recovering socialst, part-time drummer, long-suffering Brewers fan, and all-around beach hound, Mr. Bastian lives in central New Jersey. Email Matthew Bastian: mbastian19@hotmail.com Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
