OPINION & EDITORIAL
Few controversial issues clearly right; but gay rights one of them
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Nathan Braun:
- Few controversial issues clearly right; but gay rights one of them (November 1, 2007)
- Nuclear power worth risks (October 18, 2007)
- Humans must evolve, realize climate change is real (October 4, 2007)
- Life after Bush: Holding candidates to a higher standard of rhetoric (September 20, 2007)
- Taxes cost-effective energy solution (September 12, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Senate Bill 1 vital (March 21, 2006)
- Political miscourse (December 13, 2006)
- Not time for Democrats to waiver after loss (November 11, 2004)
- Regents' meddling misguided (October 11, 2006)
- Party identifiers cloud judgment (October 26, 2007)
by Nathan Braun
Thursday, November 1, 2007
One thing that’s troubling about the American political system today is its lack of options. Under our current system, it is unrealistic to expect one of the two parties to have a monopoly on good ideas. The reality is that there’s room for reasonable people across the political spectrum to disagree on many of the political and moral issues facing America today. Often there aren’t a lot of easy answers.
Most of the time, that is.
If there is one area that does have a simple, common-sense solution, it’s the issue of gay marriage and gay rights. This may be one of the only issues facing America today where half of the political spectrum is virtually dead wrong.
Federal law currently provides more than 1,000 benefits and protections to married couples, including hospital visitation rights, child custody and health and retirement benefits. Wisconsin provides an additional 200 legal protections to married couples under state law. In November 2006, Wisconsin, which has a motto of “Forward,” became the 14th state in the nation to effectively ban gay marriage and civil unions.
Above all, gay rights are a question of civil rights and human dignity. We pride ourselves here in America as being the first country to officially recognize that everyone has the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” But at every point since Jefferson penned those words in 1776, there have been certain groups who’ve found these rights lacking — not because of anything they’ve done, but simply because of who they are.
It took far too long for women and racial minorities to be effectively considered equal under the law in this country; many would argue that we still have a ways to go. But we’ve made progress in those areas. Witness the uproar surrounding Dr. James Watson’s comments about black people being genetically inferior a few weeks ago, for example.
Meanwhile, gays and lesbians could very well be the last remaining group facing blatant discrimination by a majority of Americans.
Author Sam Harris in his 2004 book, “The End of Faith,” says, “It is time we realized that crimes without victims are like debts without creditors. They do not even exist. Any person who lies awake at night worrying about the private pleasures of other consenting adults has more than just too much time on his hands; he has some unjustifiable beliefs about the nature of right and wrong.”
All of the seven major candidates running for president in 2008 say they are personally not OK with gay marriage. While the top three Democratic candidates all believe discrimination based on sexual orientation should be outlawed in the workplace and support full equality in civil unions, the same can’t be said for the Republicans. Rudy Giuliani supports “domestic partnerships” and equal rights under the law, but Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain all have said they are personally against any sort of civil unions.
Why? Because it makes some people uncomfortable? Because it’s forbidden in some interpretations of the Bible? I find it ironic that we as a nation are undergoing enormous sacrifices taking on theocracies in the Middle East in order to spread democracy, and at the same time amending our state constitutions to discriminate against people based solely on who they are.
The truth is there are real, tangible benefits to having a marriage or union recognized by the government that should be available to all types of people. Religion doesn’t have a lot to do with it; the separation of church and state still exists in America. This goes both ways, no one is suggesting any denomination or religion be forced to perform any ceremonies they believe are immoral or wrong. You’d think this is something the free-market savvy Republican Party could get behind. Your church or religion starts condoning lifestyles you don’t agree with? Find another one! It really doesn’t get much simpler than that.
Nathan Braun (braun@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in economics.
Anonymous (November 1, 2007 @ 8:57am):
Look at it this way, tying it to yesterday's topic of Salas quitting:
Should illegal immigrants get in-state tuition, even though they are not clearly residents?
Should gays get benefits of marriage, even though a same-sex union is not clearly marriage?
There are incentives built in to our systems to lead us in certain directions. The state needs children to be born and needs a traditional family unit to raise those children. That's why there are incentives for this to be accomplished.
You have the freedom to disregard the incentives, but there's a fee attached. Similar to immigrant students at UW: you can attend for in-state prices, but you'll have to be LEGAL.
Mike Pruden (November 1, 2007 @ 9:07am):
Religion does indeed have a lot to do with it. The fact is that both religions and governments throughout the world recognize marriage, gay or straight; and that's where the source of friction is in this issue.
As noted in the last paragraph, viable points can be made on both sides. But overall, good article.
Anonymous (November 1, 2007 @ 10:25am):
Sure Nathan, we'd be happy to support gay rights...just as soon as gays stop all the "hetero-breeder-Mr. Straight is too insecure about his own sexuality" bullshit. We're not all insecure homophobic bigots, ya know. We're all tired of being stereotyped too.
Anonymous (November 1, 2007 @ 11:41am):
I agree with 10:25am. We're not ready to trust the LGBT segment of the population just yet. There are a lot of extremists in that camp. I wouldn't feel safe letting them get beyond the status of second-class citizens. If they took over, God only knows what they're capable of.
In California, schools aren't allowed to use the words "Mom" and "Dad" because they don't want children whose parents are both gay or lesbian to feel excluded. So the children of straight parents have to be excluded instead? I'm also sick and tired of gays and lesbians telling me not to let the statements and actions of a few extremists get to me, while they don't even speak out against extremists themselves. Talk about double-standards!
That's the end of my support for gay rights for the time being.
Anonymous (November 1, 2007 @ 12:48pm):
Well, 10:24 and 11:41 obviously dispell any ideas that this could be about hetro insecurity (I especially like the bravery contained in: "God only knows what they're capable of).
Anonymous (November 1, 2007 @ 12:52pm):
8:57
That's some pretty circular logic. Of course same sex unions are not going to be clearly marriage. It's because it's illegal. Due to it being illegal, gay couples will not get the benefits of same sex unions because they aren't clearly marriage and on and on and on. I would also argue that the state is overpopulated. Regardless of that, when a lesbian couple decides to have children using their eggs, they are still left without benefits. Where are the incentives to reproduce there? The traditional family unit is a great big steaming pile as well. If the traditional family were the thing to defend, single people who wish to adopt/invitro would be barred or have that "fee."
10:25
You make a semi-valid argument, except that your message about ending stereotypes is full of stereotypes. Not all gays are hetero-haters. Not all straights think gays are hetero-haters. I just find it funny that you say your support is there on the condition that all gays do the same thing. You can't even get two individuals to do the same thing all the time. I think you're just looking for an easy out to remain anti-gay. Prove me wrong.
11:41
I really hope you're joking. The language use and tone makes it hard to decipher. If you are not joking, you fail to point out that there are a lot of extremists in the other camp too. If a rainbow revolution is coming, it will most likely be a peaceful one. I do not condone acts of extremism for any cause, but I can see that if someone has been trampled on for years on end, it would make that person angry and bitter. I would appreciate knowing how saying "my parent" is exclusive just to children of same sex couples. On the other side of the argument, being able to say "my wife" or "my husband" is very exclusive to heterosexual couples. If it's an issue with changing language patterns that you've been using for the last 20 or so years, don't take it out on the LGBT population. It's a pretty fantastic claim to say that broadening language use is excluding a group. I will thank you for your candor on treating the LGBT population as second class citizens, even if it does nullify your agreement with the previous post's assertion that not all heterosexuals are homophobic. At the very least, you appear willing to own your homophobia. I may disagree with your views, but it shows you're far more self aware than a lot of other people. And if you are kidding, my bad.
Anonymous (November 1, 2007 @ 3:19pm):
12:52, if you want to argue that the state is overpopulated, then you will have to consider the number of baby-boomers beginning to enter into their winter-years.
Also, I wouldn't call the "traditional family unit" a steaming pile of anything, especially if you consider the single moms of the inner city and the high divorce rates of the "hetero breeders." Ultimately, you could surmise, that the products of these unions burdon the tax payer (crime, incarceration, unemployment, etc).
You might criticize me for generalizing, and I realize that, but you should at least try to view this from a different angle.
Anonymous (November 1, 2007 @ 4:38pm):
Most of the arguments from people on both sides on this comment page are pro or anti-gay, not pro or anti-gay marriage. That's the problem with this issue--90% of the arguments against gay marriage are against gays, which is not the issue. The first poster is the only one who attempts to actually argue against gay marriage, as weak as it is. But even that one hinges on the core argument of those people against gay marriage: that homosexuality is wrong. Therefore we shouldn't do anything that could be mistaken as approving of it, or even promoting it.
Anonymous (November 1, 2007 @ 5:23pm):
3:19; You raise a valid point about generation gaps and populations. Also, I did not mean to criticize what the traditional family unit is, just the argument as it pertains to this discussion. It could be extended to be an advocacy for well established single folks who would be and are great at parenting. I only mean to say that a family that does not consist of a husband, wife, and 2.3 children (not sure of the actual statistic) can function just as well. To go even further off topic, i think the point you raise about inner city is best left to a discussion of race, class, and education, but we'll save that for another day. I appreciate the intelligible and rational response.
Anonymous (November 13, 2007 @ 11:40pm):
Senator Fred Thompson is the only candidate that gets it. He makes decisions based on principles. Principles don't change. You have to stand for something and not change who you are based on the polls. That is what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have done and all of the Democrats do it. Give me a leader that will stand by his principles anyday versus someone that stands for everything.
I know many Republicans and conservatives that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the candidate. He does not represent our values as conservatives, and never will. Millionaire Mitt Romney is a Republican-in-name-only (RINO ) that simply has everything else and nothing to do. "I guess I'll just try to buy the presidency". The White House isn't for sale! Conservatives will simply stay home and the Democrats will pick up additional seats in the House and probably get the 60 seats in the Senate they need to completely destroy our Country. Nice picture huh?
However, I think Fred can bring America back together, if that's even possible. America needs a rebirth of patriotism and honor. Republicans also need a rebirth. President Reagan was our last rebirth and he can never be duplicated. Fred Thompson will bring his own down-to-earth common sense to this country. If a conservative runs as a conservative, he will win!
Think of it this way: Eight years of another Clinton White House? Now if that is not a sufficient enough reason to pull together as a nation, and fight this socialist liberal takeover of our government, what is?
Folks, we are in for the fight of our lives, just as our young men and women are fighting for our freedoms in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must fight for our nation right here and now! I truly believe Fred Thompson is the one man who can pull this nation back together! Rudy Giuliani will just tear us apart.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
