In his article, New York Times columnist Kristof used a statement by President George W. Bush, euphemistically, about “defending marriage” as a reference and basically gave a rebuttal to Bush’s statement. Both men tried to tug at the heartstrings of the reader, the average citizen. Interestingly, they both used history as an advocate for their side. Bush argues that the law is unchanging because marriage, as it is defined between one man and one woman, has been the norm for ions and who are we to up and change history? Kristof states that the law is changing and specifically mentions the not-so-long ago practice of banning interracial marriage. He says the crux of the problem, and thus the solution, lies with changing perceptions, many don’t think twice at an interracial couple while just a generation ago it would have been a grand scandal.
Neither Bush nor Kristof delineates a plan for totally approving or disapproving gay marriage. Bush’s argument is based around then-recent independent judicial decisions that basically went against the norm and the precedent and allowed gay marriage to occur, specifically in
Specifically in the anti-gay marriage debate if the argument is brought to a more personal level it could be more convincing. If Bush or whoever happens to be trying to “defend” marriage could give some sort of scientific proof that gay marriage would be the downfall of society they could be much better believed. It is still not entirely understood how people are gay and not straight or straight and not gay, so how can it be inferred, correctly, that the presence of gay marriage would simply corrupt society? Numbers don’t lie and if either side were able to accurately provide information that proves or disproves the effect of gay marriage that side would have a stronger debate and would be able to change opinions and legislation.
But for now, until (and if ever) the issue is settled; President Bush and the anti-gay marriage supporters have an upper hand as they control what legislation would pass. They may essentially be suppressing a group but at least for the time being, if only for being in power, they have a clear advantage.
As gays are more accepted as a group, the fight for gay marriage rages on as both sides of the issue use similar frames to prove their dominance and correctness. There is no clear cut right or wrong answer in this debate. However, to me, to outright ban gay marriage seems a dangerous move. It would essentially make an entire social group second-class citizens. Because of a behavioral difference from what has been dictated to be the “norm” scores of people would be given less status. Status, in this country, is usually taken away when someone has, say, committed a crime. For instance, felons are not allowed to vote. This country does have a history of loving someone being a crime, specifically interracial couples, but as Kristof said laws change.
An amendment entirely banning gay marriage or a law defining marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman could be a foul and disastrous choice. Until bigotry and hate subside, gay marriage should be seen on a state by state basis because, at least for the issue, one law would not correctly and healthily serve fifty unique states.
Kristof: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/opinion/03KRIS.html?ex=1393650000&en=ec2329074ea974dc&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
No comments:
Post a Comment