Why Delay Civil Equality?
Timothy Kincaid, reflecting on the idea that yet another state–New Jersey–is considering the civil rights issue of implementing marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, finds that there is no real "debate" left, a position you know I'd reached some time ago.
Oddly, we hear more and more opponents speaking in terms of "not being there yet", or of things "moving too quickly". That "yet" is revealing, don't you think? We recently posted an excerpt from an editorial in a New Jersey paper whose headline spoke in terms of "inevitability" for marriage equality, and did it without flashing lights or sirens or much objection, treating it as a universally recognized truth.
And thus we are left with the unanswerable question: why do opponents of marriage equality feel it is vital for them to delay its implementation as long as possible? It's a fantastic waste of resources and an intolerable and unjustifiable mistreatment of a group of US citizens who want to be treated fairly and who are themselves tired of "special rights" for heterosexual couples. As I've said before, I'm tired of being a wedge issue.
As this [marriage-equality] debate plays out across the nation, I am finding that for me this is becoming less of a “agree to disagree” issue.
I am no longer willing to accept as a credible position that I am inferior to other citizens, that my rights are not equal to thier and I am not qualified to determine to whom I should be married.
I no longer see this as “a slowly shifting cultural perspective”. I no longer find that “good people just haven’t gotten there yet”. I can no longer accept that others have “their own moral beliefs which have to be respected.”
There are no credible arguments that argue in favor of a need for discrimination against gay couples. This has become abundantly evident in the debates in the New York Senate and the New Jersey Judiciary Committee. Those who opposed equality either did so silently – I suspect shamefully – or couched their objection in the language of bigotry.
Opponents of equality are left with nothing more than an appeal to their own religion, their own biases, or those of their constituents. No principled objections are made because none exist.
[excerpted from Timothy Kincaid, "New Jersey marriage vote delayed", Box Turtle Bulletin, 9 December 2009.]
One Response
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Thursday, 24 December 2009 at 05.41
Permalink
It's a fantastic waste of resources and an intolerable and unjustifiable mistreatment of a group of US citizens who want to be treated fairly and who are themselves tired of "special rights" for heterosexual couples.
I see you making two arguments here: utilitarian and general fairness.
On the utilitarian side, keep in mind that marriage is generally an expensive institution, what with the legal costs and extension of benefits. You've posted on some of the economic benefits of same sex marriage, but I'm not sure you would win the accounting war.
We extend "special rights" because in this day and age we use marriage as the basis for bringing kids into the world, so we cut them some slack. Is it fair to extend tiresome "special rights" even farther?