November 4: a Contradiction on Justice and Equality
Chris Connors
Issue date: 12/2/08 Section: Opinion
On November 4, 2008, America elected Barack Obama as the next President of the United States, ushering in an era of, at the very least, visible equality for black Americans at the highest possible level. Not only was this a powerful recognition of the successes of the long battle for civil rights in this country, but also a bold statement to the world at large: the American Dream is alive and well, achievable by all who wholeheartedly seek it, regardless of religion, sexual orientation, race, or gender. Or is it?
On the same day, three states passed bans on same-sex marriages, effectively tarnishing the overwhelming victory for egalitarianism achieved by Barack Obama's victory. The most loudly touted of these, California's Proposition 8, effectively stripped away the rights already given to homosexuals earlier this year; the state's Supreme Court acknowledged the prerogative of same-sex couples to wed with a 4-3 majority decision in May.
For many social and religious conservatives, the problem lies directly with defining a marriage between people of the same sex as just that: marriage. Others seem to believe that allowing marriage equality would somehow tarnish their own heterosexual marriages, and the very institution of marriage at large. Still others maintain that our children would become confused or frightened when taught that marriage does not have to be specifically between a man and woman. Are these valid arguments? Are we really not intelligent enough as human beings to discern our own beliefs from multiple points of view?
Unfortunately, one need only turn the pages of history to observe similar arguments used against other groups of people who wanted the right to marry. As late as 1967, sixteen states had laws banning the marriage between blacks and whites. If the Supreme Court had not interceded, we could easily imagine a United States that still purported a "separate but equal" stance, much like "civil unions" and "marriages" seem to today.
On the same day, three states passed bans on same-sex marriages, effectively tarnishing the overwhelming victory for egalitarianism achieved by Barack Obama's victory. The most loudly touted of these, California's Proposition 8, effectively stripped away the rights already given to homosexuals earlier this year; the state's Supreme Court acknowledged the prerogative of same-sex couples to wed with a 4-3 majority decision in May.
For many social and religious conservatives, the problem lies directly with defining a marriage between people of the same sex as just that: marriage. Others seem to believe that allowing marriage equality would somehow tarnish their own heterosexual marriages, and the very institution of marriage at large. Still others maintain that our children would become confused or frightened when taught that marriage does not have to be specifically between a man and woman. Are these valid arguments? Are we really not intelligent enough as human beings to discern our own beliefs from multiple points of view?
Unfortunately, one need only turn the pages of history to observe similar arguments used against other groups of people who wanted the right to marry. As late as 1967, sixteen states had laws banning the marriage between blacks and whites. If the Supreme Court had not interceded, we could easily imagine a United States that still purported a "separate but equal" stance, much like "civil unions" and "marriages" seem to today.
Be the first to comment on this story