This has really nothing to do with my Italian adventures, but I feel just as strongly about it as I do our Italian chef Bruno!
All joking aside, today begins the trial of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case in California that could overturn Prop 8. I am of the opinion that Prop 8, despite its supporter's fervent denial, is the cloak superficially covering years and centuries of homophobia. This case certainly has the sociopolitical implications that Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade had in the past- and is THE civil rights struggle of our generation.
This issue is being viewed through a myriad of social lenses- some relevant, some not so relevant. Perhaps being in Europe, with all these crazy socialists, has made me even more adamant about same-sex marriage rights, but I am continually disappointed by some American's inability to realize the importance of civil rights as well as the consequences of this decision.
Natural human habit never changes- ultimately, we will always fear what we don't understand. You can pollute the issue with billions of court cases and studies and bible quotes, but these socially highly regarded formalities cannot veil what is teeming just beneath the surface- the uneasiness people feel towards homosexuality. It's easy to watch old white men on C-SPAN and trust that they oppose gay marriage not because they are homophobic, but because it "protects our children". Well that sounds great, I'd love to protect our children! That statement evokes the morality of raising our children right! We need to listen closer. We need to listen closer to what pro-Prop 8 groups (as well as any other "pro-family" groups) are saying. In their "About Us" section, the Protect Marriage organization fails to mention exactly what they think Prop 8 will protect their children from. They say,
"Because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between any two persons rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of marriage." (http://www.protectmarriage.com/about/why)
I have many problems with this. Namely, they ascribe to a long standing and incredibly effective literary tool: That of dancing around what you are really trying to say. This animal is known in the wild as "bullshit".
What Protect Marriage is conveniently leaving out is that they do not want their children to know that gay people exist, because if they know gay people exists, that means the idea will be planted in their head and that they could become gay. This is the most bigoted, inaccurate, and disgusting thing that is somehow accepted that I've ever heard, and it makes me sick. However, many people who don't support same-sex marriage are not wholly bigoted, unlike those who never want their children to "find out" about homosexuality. Many people are just uncomfortable with homosexuals, and hop on the bandwagon because they were raised in a time in which only heterosexuality was tolerated. These people are not immoral, rather just ill-informed. Ignorance has too long been covertly disguised and accepted in our society.
When I use the term "ignorant", I do not use it derisively, but rather seek to employ the true definition of the word; that of a state of unawareness. I think older generations are largely unaware of the significance of equal rights for same-sex couples and homosexuals in general. In a nerdy English major move, I can't help but think of Shakespeare when he said "This house is as dark as Ignorance, though Ignorance were as dark as hell" (Twelfth Night, Act IV, scene ii). I believe our house has grown dark, and I believe we will find the power to lighten it.
As Monte Neil Stewart found in his Harvard Study of the arguments for and against same-sex marriage,
"The successful constitutional arguments advanced in support of man-woman marriage succeed because they are ultimately premised on the factually accurate broad (or institutional) description of a complex whole—the marriage institution—that guides individual activity, sustains identity, gives sense and purpose to the lives of its participants, and thereby produces valuable social goods."
Now, Harvard is one of the greatest educational institutions in America and I'm sure Monte Neil Stewart owns many leather-bound books, but we are not a society dependent on the success of a nuclear familial unit to sustain our economy or infrastructure. Left and right (pun intended), heterosexual marriages are falling apart, with and without progeny. Nor are gay couples plagued by purposelessness, being attracted to your own sex does not strip your life of meaning. I'd also like to point out that "sustaining identity" could be a bad thing, such as sustaining one's identity as a bigot, felon, or tyrant. In short, Stewart's analysis short changes marriage, considering it only as a tool for a government or society- a government or society that could theoretically be morally bankrupt and corrupt. Stewart assumes the government serves all its members equally; but as history shows, governments generally fail in providing equal rights for all of their people. More often than not, all governments become oligarchical, serving only a small group. In America, this group consists of Upper-middle class, straight, Christian white men. Historically, marriage has been a tool for procreation, sustaining familial ties, founding alliances, and convenience. Our society is not dependent on these values. We have outdated our definition of marriage. Marriage, in a free society like America's, should be about love. Positive feelings toward another human being, including sexual love.
As Stewart confirms, yes, heterosexual marriage is useful to our society, but so was slavery. Slavery fueled the cotton and tobacco economies that boosted this nation to its (now increasingly waning) financial supremacy, but it is inherently immoral. W.H. Beveridge, in his book Full Employment in a Free Society (1944), points out that "Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."
As Americans, we cannot afford to allow this pervasive ignorance to continue to plague our fight for civil rights. America was founded not upon religious doctrine, but upon an inextinguishable hunger for liberty. Liberty in the face of a nameless and blameless monster that is the collective misguided public. I believe this hunger will eventually be sated, but it should be sated today, not in five or ten years. We cannot wait for those in the dark to "warm up" or "come around" to the idea of same-sex marriage, which so obviously just makes many uncomfortable. An alarming amount of people are still uncomfortable seeing an interracial couple, but that uncomfortable feeling is largely unacceptable to advertise in our society. So should the uncomfortable feeling of seeing two men holding hands down the street, or two women in the mall with their child. I believe Jack Nicholson's character in Scorsese's The Departed hit the nail on the head when he said "No one gives it to you. You have to take it". Interestingly enough, his character was also discussing civil rights, that of black Americans (although he uses less than savory vocabulary).
People ask me why I'm an English major- and truly, it's an impossible to define in a sentence. In a larger sense, it's easier to identify my concentration with the Humanities. My interest in English goes beyond my veneration of literature. For many people, the humanities are considered irrelevant, which is a travesty. I think it's important to relate the humanities to the idea of Renaissance humanism- which encompasses a bevy of ideas and schools of thought, but namely includes a passionate concern with "human interests and welfare, stressing the inherent value and potential of human life" (Oxford English Dictionary). It seems like quite a jump for same-sex marriage to Renaissance humanism, but it is wrapped up in the holistic view of education and philosophy. In my English classes we examine and analyze every aspect of the human condition, which sounds hokey and pretentious and airy, but ultimately can lead to my favorite thing to be led to- clarity. Clarity of history, clarity of meaning, clarity of significance.
For many, same-sex marriage is a confusing issue, convoluted with bias and tangled in never-ending politics. Boiled down however, it is in the same vein as every other civil rights issue. The emancipation of slaves in the late 19th century, the sufferance of women in the early 20th century, the Black Civil Rights and Feminist Movements in contemporary society, and now it's a different monster. People have a way of ignoring history and historical example. Despite all the cliches, history is in fact, condemned to repeat itself. For too many the issue of same-sex marriage is tossed aside as a frivolous foray of the idealistic and liberal. That is also what people thought about the entire doctrine of democracy in ancient societies. For a society to maintain its liberty, it needs to be looking forward. Not necessarily a doctrine of "progress for progress' sake", but rather progress for liberty's sake. In general, we are lucky to be citizens of America, fortunate enough to be guaranteed rights many citizens of the world are denied. America needs to be a beacon; not in a financial or militaristic capacity, but as a society that successfully acts in defense of basic human rights.
At this point I will hearken to a previous post, about negative reactions to the pop artist Lady Gaga. People think what she does is "out-there". What does "out-there" even really mean? It means something outside the boundaries of people's comfort zones. Lady Gaga wears outfits considered strange by our society- GASP! She must be Satan. Some people are attracted to their same sex- Grab your torches and pitchforks! Martin Luther thought religion should be free from corruption- Kill all the Protestants! Sadly, the last two are/were much bigger social issues, for which hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of deaths in history serve to evidence. Just like Luther's ideals challenged the Papal authority, gay activist's ideals challenge the authority of "the norm". It was the fact that Luther was undermining the theocracy- the power. I believe that gay activists undermine the power of the oldwhitestraightguy, and it unnerves them. However, we cannot afford to stroke egos, we are dealing with an issue larger than some people being "weirded out" by homosexuals.
Same-sex marriage is a question of freedom. America guarantees rights to its citizens, and in denying those rights fails as an institution. Our voices can turn the tide and work against ignorance. In whatever way you can, lend your support to the overturning of Prop 8, without which we cannot make progress for LGBTQ Civil Rights.
no one read this .
ReplyDelete