The language used in defining the political history of the United States is filled with liberty and freedom. These words, however, are simply reactions to something much more apparent within our history: discrimination and intolerance. This Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives are going to vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment. This amendment bans any sort of legal protections for gay couples and their families. Even at the state level, an amendment to ban gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships was passed last November in the Wisconsin Legislature, and will come around again this upcoming November. If it passes, it will go to a statewide referendum in April, in which we will be able to vote on whether or not we should allow discrimination within our state constitution. It is one thing to acknowledge the history of discrimination within this country, but it is another to actually perpetuate it.
The idea of the “sanctity of marriage,” a term popularized by President Bush, has been around for a while. Up until 1967, some states did not allow interracial couples to marry. A white person marrying someone from the “incorrect race” was deemed immoral or unnatural. This is the same language being used today in the discussion of same sex marriage. I think it is safe to say that the ranks of the discriminatory ideologists are not filled with English majors; their rhetoric is all but new, relying on immorality as a justifiable reason for their cause.
The ambiguous language used in declaring something unnatural or immoral is another thing that would drive an English major mad. It is ironic however, that these words are both too general and overly simplistic to the cause in which they are defined for.
First off, what does it mean to be unnatural? Looking back down the long, evolving line of human antiquity, there is no certain answer that monogamy was always practiced, let alone solely between a man and a women. Social structure was more a reflection of the availability of food than anything else. I would like to see where this imaginary line between the natural and the unnatural is drawn. Even if we do allow this idea of the natural in discussion of gay rights, maybe this “natural” state isn’t entirely desirable. It is important for us to embrace the present; it is the only realm of time in which we can work. Our social and political history is full of change and progress and similar to our past, the liberal America will again win its fight.
The fight against immorality is a hard battle to win, because everyone has their own basis for morality and ethics. This argument may help to strengthen the hearts of the masses who believe that gay-marriage is wrong, but it isn’t going to be persuasive in gaining many independents. The United States is a country of law, not of religion. We cannot pick and chose which people we are going to protect.
Yet again, I ask this question: what does the “sanctity of marriage” actually mean? This terminology is a bit too vague for my tastes. Some argue that allowing gay marriage will corrupt the very foundation of marriage. Maybe this is a good thing — marriage may indeed need a touch up. If we drew a horizontal line to represent the evolution of marriage, on the far left would lay its origins, one characterized by female reproduction and dowries. As we move further down this historical timeline, we find that our social consciousness has changed. We can now say that the majority of marriages today are based upon the love held between two people. Now it seems as if we have hit a wall. It is as though we are falling years behind, applying archaic criteria based on reproduction, in the debate over gay marriage. We are swinging the pendulum all the way back to the left (ironic, isn’t it?) and thus not allowing us to progress forward.
A revitalization of the definition of marriage is in store, and with time, there is no doubt that it will come. Equality will soon be a reality in this country. I have no doubt that we will see equal marriage rights for everyone; now it is just a matter of how long we are willing to wait.
Marissa Milstein ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in English and anthropology.
