Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Is Gay Marriage Eating Itself?

Buried deep in the news coverage of yesterday's "off-year" elections was the following item:

Texans approved a "constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

In the same area, you could find this:

In Maine, voters turned back a measure placed on the ballot by a church-backed conservative coalition that would have repealed a gay-rights law approved by lawmakers earlier this year. The lawmakers had expanded the state’s human rights act to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Is it me, or is there some cognitive dissonance here? On the one hand voters are saying that there should be no discrimination based on sexual preference, and on the other they are saying that there should be a 'separate but equal' institution for the partnership of couples based on sexual preference. Does that make any sense?

Perhaps it does - not that I agree with it, but perhaps it makes sense based on the distinction between basic decency and the natural resistance to institutional change. But perhaps it is because the forces behind the gay marriage initiatives have overplayed their hand and made the voters uncomfortable.

That is the only rational explanation I can think of. By the 90's it seemed that homexuality had gained acceptance as a naturally occuring sexual preference - as opposed to aberrant perversion. But then some groups began to take an 'in your face' approach to it, demanding special rights and priveledges, appearing in public wearing wholly inappropriate outfits, and basically behaving like the aberrant perverts that people feared. Naturally there has been some amount of backlash, and I think that is part of it.

A larger part is the activism of so-called Christian Conservatives. They have decided that two loving homosexuals engaged in a loving union is a greater threat to the institution of marriage than 'drive by weddings' by celebrities and rampant spousal abuse. And they are using scare tactics to make people believe that homosexual marriage is an affront to existing marriages and will legitimize perversion.

Why do I care? Because I want everyone to have the opportunity to have happiness without oppression, experience the love I share with my wife without legal limitations and stigma. And I have two boys - how can I know if perhaps one of them is homosexual? And if they are, I want them to be able to enjoy life to the fullest without repercussions or limitations based solely on sexual orientation.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The perfect workplace crime: The blog break
So I would have started this article last week, but there was all this interesting stuff on Romenesko, and then the Huffington Post had some delicious speculation about the Plame case, and, of course, Defamer ...
Find out how to buy and sell anything, like things related to road construction safety equipment on interest free credit and pay back whenever you want! Exchange FREE ads on any topic, like road construction safety equipment!

Anonymous said...

Don't you hate those ridicous blog, ads?

Well, anyways, I say let them have their goverment marriage if those cluess folks really want it. Marriage is a religious commitment in which the government has no place.