"Gays are not excluded from the benefits of marriage by others; they have been excluded by their own choices," said Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), the chief House sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, in a May 13 hearing on the proposal.
Well, to begin with, Musgrave's contention rests on the counter-factual idea that homosexuality is a choice, not inborn. But even if you accept that premise, Musgrave's statement is still idiotic.
Suppose one were to propose a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting marriage between Baptists. Would it make any sense at all to say "Baptists are not excluded from the benefits of marriage by others; they have been excluded by their own choices"? Religion, after all, is clearly a matter of individual choice.
Sure, freedom of religious choice is presumably protected by the First Amendment, but we're talking here about another Amendment. It could easily be written in such a way as to acknowledge and trump the First. But let that go, too. Instead, let's ban marriage between Ford drivers, or people who live in yellow houses, or those who own dogs. If Musgrave stood up and said, "Those who drive Fords are not excluded from the benefits of marriage by others; they have been excluded by their own choices," she would be laughed off the House floor (I hope...one never knows).
Of course, without picking on Musgrave personally, I have known plenty of religious believers who would see nothing wrong with banning marriage for other denominations. I certainly know Catholics who would vote tomorrow for an amendment banning Baptist marriages...
And just this morning the local NPR station was doing a "Brown v. Board of Education" retrospective. They interviewed an old geezer in Virginia who was the president of the school board at the time. This man had closed all public schools in the district rather than integrate. When asked why, he said that he was concerned that the black teenagers and the white teenagers would be sexually attracted to one another, and it would lead to interracial marriage. One could almost see him spit as he continued, saying that he still doesn't think interracial marriage is right.
They're always trumpeting polls that say 60% (or 70%, or 92.7% -- pick a number) of Americans are against gay marriage. I wonder what results we'd see if pollsters asked about interracial marriages, or marriages between people of different religious faiths? I'm betting that the numbers would be a lot higher than any of us would care to predict. All of which is irrelevant, other than to show why questions of social justice cannot and should not be resolved by majority vote.
I've just finished reading Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America by Jonathan Rauch. The book makes some great points, particularly when talking about the fundamental question of what "marriage" means and what it's for. After examining several concepts (childbearing and rearing, economic advantage, sex), he argues persuasively that in today's society, the sine qua non of marriage is two people promising to take care of one another. As evidence, he offers the following familiar quote:
"...to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until death do us part."
Pretty damned definitive, eh?
Fortunately, marriage for gays is coming, and nothing Musgrave or anyone else can do will stop it. And in fifty years, when Musgrave is a bitter old geezer sitting in her Colorado home, she will probably tell an NPR reporter that she still doesn't think gay marriage is right. And the audience will shake their heads, almost unable to believe that someone so pathetically stupid had ever held a position of responsibility in society.
I hope I'm there to see it.
M.
No comments:
Post a Comment