We shall see what happens tonight as the Californian citizens vote on proposition 8. If passed, it would amend the state constitution to eliminate same-sex couple's right to marraige in California.
That would be a shame as I thought California was always a pretty rational state. That's right - I said it. You have to be irrational to vote for a ban on same-sex marriage. I never understand the popular argument against same-sex marriage: how does banning someone's right to something protect your right to that very same thing? Are these people referring to the kind of traditional marriage arrangement in feudal times, when people are forced to marry to forge economic ties, and when people need to reproduce kids to work the land more efficiently? How does same sex marriage undermine traditional marriage? How does someone else's marriage undermine yours?
I had thought that we are way past defining marrying for commerce. Marriage is a union of love. Gender plays no role in defining marriage. Love does.
More popularly, opponents to same-sex marriage argue that they do not oppose gay rights. They believe the same legal rights in a domestic partnership apply to homosexual couple. But how is denying a gay person's right to have a legally recognized marriage not a deprivation of a right? There are important legal consequences and distinctions between a domestic partnership and a legal marriage. At the very least, a domestic partnership requires more legal manoeuvering to offer the same legal protection a marriage automatically offers. More importantly, the right to be married is an end in itself and should not be regarded as merely a mean to achieve an end. The denial of same-sex couple's right to marriage IS a deprivation of a right in itself.
And how can someone believe in equality rights and support denying rights to a sector of the society? Isn't this line of arguments premised on the "separate but equal" logic? Like in Animal Farm, everyone's equal, but some are more equal than others?
Opponents to same-sex marriage cite fears of the disintegration of traditional marriage. But I fail to see the validity of the argument. Are these opponents suggesting that heterosexual couples will convert to homosexuality and marry the same-sex if given the chance? Or are they fearing that closet homosexuals who otherwise choose to hide their sexual orientation by entering into traditional marriages would be liberated to marry the same sex if given the chance? either way, if that's the argument, then opponents of same-sex marriage should also consider banning anything remotely influencing marriage rates. Perhaps divorce should be illegal. Higher education and high stress work life also delay marriage and should be banned. Careers in law, finance, medicine (and insert other professions equally time consuming and stressful) should all be outlawed for disintegrating traditional marriage.
Some extremists like to characterize same-sex marriage as improper like certain taboo relationships (in one heated argument, my opponent cites incest as the next thing we would legalize if we allow same-sex marriage). This characterization disregards the concerns of abuse in a power-dependent, fiduciary relationships. Any relationship that involves manipulation, abuse of trust, unilateral discretion and control over a vulnerable party should be characterized as taboo. Abusive relationships are always taboo and are not defined by gender. I fail to see the validity of these arguments.
I disagree with the populist view of rights. Our rights do not flow from majoritarian will. Equality rights are inherent in our human dignity - we as humans are all equal and are entitled to rights not to be deprived of the popular consensus of the day.
But I'm not a Californian. Who am I to say?
0 comments:
Post a Comment