Let me preface the following by first stating that I am not sold on the institution of marriage.
With that said, if it is determined that citizens have the right to marry, then that right should be unalienable. How would opponents of same-sex marriage feel if they were denied their right to choose a life partner and get married? Because that's what it's essentially about--CHOICE. These opponents have that choice, and they don't know how it feels to be told by the class bully what to do.
But I'm not here to speak to opponents. No matter how many debates we engage in, how much statistical and scientific evidence I present, I will be unable to sway their stance. They won't listen to me because to them, Proposition 8 is a piece of legislation, essentially, paperwork. In order to change their outlook, us supporters need to humanize Prop 8 by taking the advice of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California, who famously iterated in "The Hope Speech":
Unless you have dialogue, unless you open the walls of dialogue, you can never reach to change people's opinion... Once you have dialogue starting, you know you can break down prejudice.How do we get the dialogue started? Let's use the story of Jerry Sanders, the Republican mayor of San Diego, as inspiration. The former gay marriage opponent went through a defining moment in his personal and political career when his daughter confided that she was a lesbian in a committed relationship. After publicly changing his stance on the subject, he lost support within his party, but worked hard to get re-elected for another term.
Point being, for the LGBT community, there is no better way to start the dialogue than to be true to yourself with your family and friends. Make your voices heard, your stories told, your struggles public. As straight allies, we can protect you from the bully, but he'll still pounce on you when we're not around. The only solution is for you yourself to stand up to the bully in front of the class and proclaim that you will no longer accept being treated as anything less than equal.
Every generation wages its own battles as its gift to the next, fighting for the rights of women and minorities. If this is the battle that defines our generation in history, then for the sake of our future, let us put up a good fight and make sure we emerge victorious.
PS As far as we know, Lindsay Lohan is the child of a heterosexual marriage. Case closed.
For play-by-play comprehensive trial updates, follow @NCLRights. For the cliff notes version, the Huffington Los Angeles feed has excellent coverage.
Posts
looks like trial just ended but probably no closing until march. still have a long way to go.
ReplyDeletebtw, i've been following updates at http://prop8trialtracker.com/. just a suggestion.
Thanks @min, always in the know :)
ReplyDeleteThe real solution is for people to advocate the end of govt involvement in marriage. The convoluted idea of a marriage license and having to ask permission from the State to get married is in itself the problem.
ReplyDeleteTake govt out of the business of marriage and of giving perks like tax breaks to married people and problem solved. Everyone can then get married to whoever they want in front of people who love and care about them and nobody can stop them.
When gay people ask to be included in this institution they are in a sense legitimizing the ridiculous notion that the State should have the power to get involved in our personal lives.
@victor: Whether the government should be regulating marriage is a different story/post. What I'm simply stating is that there is a right to marry for some, and not for others, and that is unjust.
ReplyDeleteI think it's relevant. I'm just pointing out a viewpoint that is not ever brought up because it is not spoonfed by policy makers to the media/us. Why? Because the more personal business they can butt in to, the more power they have, therefore, advocating my view goes against their personal interests. That goes for both the Republican and Democrat Parties.
ReplyDeletePoliticians are master manipulators. In a discussion what they try to do is frame the question into two possible outcomes, their view put in the rosiest light and the other view expressed in a way that nobody can agree to. For example, Obama saying "Either we pass my healthcare reform, or our healthcare system will fall apart" or Bush's "You are either with us or against us".
The Gay marriage debate has also been cast in this light by both Political Parties. The debate is muddled. Like I said, the real solution is neither of the ones framed by either Parties.
A short term practical benefit of my argument is that you can pull a lot of non traditional support. The traditional small govt conservative Republican will agree with you and so will all the Libertarians and many independents.
The long term benefit is that you are not just putting band aid on a system that has cancer , but you are actually treating the problem. In other words you aren't treating the symptom (gays are not allowed legally to get married), but you are treating the disease (govt has the power to say gays can not get married).
@victor: Maybe I titled the post incorrectly. I'm really speaking more about the ongoing fight against inequality, and asking people to open it up for discussion rather than keeping things taboo, and dare I say, in the closet.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying I disagree with your solution at all; thank you for bringing it to my attention. It'll definitely be in the back of my mind when I speak out in the future regarding this issue.