As of 5:01pm yesterday, gay people in California can get married. Today in the news I'm seeing mostly cute articles about different couples tying the knot, but in the days leading up to this event, people were re-hashing the arguments for and against gay marriage ad nauseam.
When people argue about the issue, inevitably someone liberal but not very invested in the cause comes up with what he's sure is the most novel idea anyone's ever heard. If only everyone would listen to this brilliant piece of insight, we could all stop fighting and put the issue to rest. the argument is: "Abolish government marriage. Let the government perform civil unions for gays AND straights, but leave marriage to the churches. After all, this gives gay people the legal rights of married people without the separate but equal problem, and since we're not using the word marriage, conservatives can't claim we're going against their religious beliefs!"
this argument is bullcrap.
history lesson:
In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court found that having separate schools for black and white children, even if they were of equal quality, was unconstitutional. In response, at least one rural school system in southern Virginia literally shut down their schools. "Fine, if we have to give black kids the same thing we're giving to whites, we just won't give anything to anyone. problem solved."
If you think this was an unjust action, how can you support taking away marriage rather than give it to gays? Even if you don't find the situations perfectly analogous, you've got to admit there's a resemblance, and that means making the government grant "civil union licenses" instead of marriage licenses is not going to satisfy gay people.
beyond that, right now marriage means more than just "civil union plus religious ceremony." the meaning's kind of amorphous and changing, but don't mistake "hard to define" with "without definition."
for example: My mother is an atheist. But she's married to my dad. They didn't go to a synagogue or church to have some religious ceremony, but she still rather likes being married to him. Despite the fact their union is not consecrated by any religious power, I'm pretty damn sure she'd think calling their relationship a civil union instead of a marriage would be a downgrade.
This solution would please no one who thinks civil marriage is more than hospital visitation rights and the ability to file a joint tax return.
And you know what? Even if some Evangelicals think civil marriage means exactly that, they would not be okay with calling it anything but marriage.
it's not like they're exactly huge separation of church and state proponents. Have you not paid attention to the idiotic crusades against liberals and the evil ACLU who are wiping out G-d from public life. These people boycott big box stores who say "Happy Holidays" in their December ads. They talk endlessly about displaying the 10 commandments in courtrooms and encouraging prayer in public schools. They very firmly believe that "America is a Christian nation," and to them, instituting Civil Unions is going to be taking the God out of marriage.
Basically, this "solution" would satisfy no one at all. Come up with some new ideas.
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Monday, June 16, 2008
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The sky is green.
this makes me proud of my county.
The thing that's frustrated me the most as I've followed this story (as the article says, they've been trying to get a curriculum approved for quite a while now) is the way some conservatives have co-opted the liberal rhetoric of open-mindedness to advance their agenda.
What I mean is, groups like Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (I think that's their name) argue that if you're going to have an open discussion on homosexuality, you've got to include the viewpoint that it is immoral and a sickness that can be cured. (never mind what the pesky psychiatrists who reclassified it in the 1970s have to say.) The same thing happens in evolution debates. The vast majority of biologists everywhere agree that evolution happened (and is still happening). But a couple scientists dispute that. And they get on the news and talk about their "findings" (never published in serious peer-reviewed journals, of course. but that's because the establishment is "trying to silence them.") and convince enough people who are predisposed to either take the bible literally or mistrust scientists that they may be on to something. They *create* the controversey and then argue that we need to teach it.
What both issues have in common is the sentiment, "hey, we've got a viewpoint! how can you claim to be so open minded and accepting if you discredit it! you're silencing us, you hypocritical liberals!" As if somehow, respecting opposing viewpoints necessarily means ascribing to complete moral and intellectual relativism. (and as if challenging the underlying logic or premises behind a position is the same as silencing those who hold that position.)
The thing is, I have a viewpoint too. I believe the sky is neon green. I can probably find you some scientist somewhere who agrees with me. I am prepared to send letters to the editor of every major newspaper arguing my position. I am prepared to go on TV and radio shows and explain why I'm right. I'll take out ads in all different media, build a legitimate-looking website, and found an institute supporting my beliefs. I'm SO SURE of myself that I'm actually resentful that the rest of the world still thinks the sky is blue. How can they possibly ignore all of my arguments? At the very least, Kindergarden teachers everywhere should teach the controversey!
The thing that's frustrated me the most as I've followed this story (as the article says, they've been trying to get a curriculum approved for quite a while now) is the way some conservatives have co-opted the liberal rhetoric of open-mindedness to advance their agenda.
What I mean is, groups like Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (I think that's their name) argue that if you're going to have an open discussion on homosexuality, you've got to include the viewpoint that it is immoral and a sickness that can be cured. (never mind what the pesky psychiatrists who reclassified it in the 1970s have to say.) The same thing happens in evolution debates. The vast majority of biologists everywhere agree that evolution happened (and is still happening). But a couple scientists dispute that. And they get on the news and talk about their "findings" (never published in serious peer-reviewed journals, of course. but that's because the establishment is "trying to silence them.") and convince enough people who are predisposed to either take the bible literally or mistrust scientists that they may be on to something. They *create* the controversey and then argue that we need to teach it.
What both issues have in common is the sentiment, "hey, we've got a viewpoint! how can you claim to be so open minded and accepting if you discredit it! you're silencing us, you hypocritical liberals!" As if somehow, respecting opposing viewpoints necessarily means ascribing to complete moral and intellectual relativism. (and as if challenging the underlying logic or premises behind a position is the same as silencing those who hold that position.)
The thing is, I have a viewpoint too. I believe the sky is neon green. I can probably find you some scientist somewhere who agrees with me. I am prepared to send letters to the editor of every major newspaper arguing my position. I am prepared to go on TV and radio shows and explain why I'm right. I'll take out ads in all different media, build a legitimate-looking website, and found an institute supporting my beliefs. I'm SO SURE of myself that I'm actually resentful that the rest of the world still thinks the sky is blue. How can they possibly ignore all of my arguments? At the very least, Kindergarden teachers everywhere should teach the controversey!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)