When protecting tradition limits rights
Since the 1970s, same-sex couples have strived for marriage licenses.
The nation has asked the Supreme Court to decide. So far, gay marriage is only legal in one state. Over the next few years, state courts will be forced to give an answer. The decision will be an indicator of either progress for minorities or conservation of tradition. For some, it will be a matter of where America stands morally.
Until a decision is made, Americans must ask themselves: Is it constitutional to ban gay marriage?
This American says no.
Many conservatives and fundamentalists would view my response to the issue of gay marriage as typical. It is in every way. As a liberal, I favor change over tradition, especially when there is a clear and present need for change. I believe that those who oppose gay marriage are infringing on the happiness of others based upon their own intolerant view toward those who are different.
In his essay “Beyond Gay Marriage”, Michael Warner, a social theorist and professor at Yale University, writes, “At this point, the only people arguing against gay marriage, it seems, are those prehistoric dinosaurs that think that marriage is still about procreation, or that same sex marriage somehow threatens to ‘tear apart America’s moral fabric'”.
Some fundamentalists try to take the route of simply defending marriage, trying to make their arguments sound perhaps fair and scholarly, but when I read such arguments that simply attempt to “defend marriage,” it is necessary to read between the lines. They try to defend marriage in terms of its definition and tradition. To me, arguments like these need to simply open with “I do not like gay people” so there is no ambiguity or false tolerance to their statements. What other reasons would such careful measures be taken to protect marriage as only “a union between man and woman”?
Furthermore, what about the idea of marriage needs to be “protected” other than the fact that it has traditionally not been between two members of the same sex?
I do not see this as a protection of any sort, and I think that this kind of exclusion is not what the Constitution should be used for.
“Most [constitutional amendments] expand individual rights,” Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said in a 2004 speech to the U.S. Senate. “Constitutional change creates the serious danger of disturbing the public tranquility by interesting strongly the public passions in the issues proposed for constitutional change.”
We can use the Bible as a compass to argue whether being gay is right or wrong, and we can look at tradition, but that will not make homosexuals disappear. We can debate endlessly over whether or not one is born gay or whether he chooses to be so, but the fact is that there are still homosexuals. Suppose laws like DOMA do pass. What will they prove? An exact answer with no scholarly ambiguity would be, “we have not given gays the same rights as straight people and in doing so we have shown them just how immoral and wrong that their lifestyle is.” We can tell the gay community that they cannot marry, but I do not believe that people will lose their ove for their partners, nor convert to heterosexuality as a result.
America has not always been readily accepting toward many issues, such as women’s and minority rights, but for the most part, we have grown and seen that not allowing women the right to vote, for example, is silly. Since there is a homosexual population fighting for their rights that America cannot ignore, it is likely that someday this argument over marriage will someday too be looked at as silly and intolerant. An embarrassing mark left on our society that looks much like the ones left by slavery, women’s inferiority, and the events that took place during the Civil Rights Movement.
Americans could avoid this future embarrassment by simply allowing their fellow human beings to legally express their love for one another in marriage. We will see what the courts will ultimately be forced to decide should Americans decide to put gay marriage on the voting ballots in the near future. Some may view the decision as a moral indication of where America stands, I and other supporters of gay marriage will view the decision as a mark of progress and tolerance.
Contact Opinions Editor Amanda Pehrson at amanda.pehrson@colorado.edu.
Comments have been disabled on this story.
