It funny how people get so hung up on words that they lose sight of their goals. When asked, gay couples cite all kinds of reason why they should be granted the privilege of marriage. Almost all of these are very practical and have benefits beyond the realm of gay unions. For instance, naming someone as your guardian to make decisions for you when you are incapacitated. Yes, you can do this legally, but in the moments when it is needed, taking the time to provide the documents that prove it may cost a life. One could make similar arguments for inheritance and child custody that are totally separate from the moral issues of homosexuality.
These are the practical goals of the Gay lobby. Then there is the impractical one. They want to change the definition of the word, "marriage." This is the sticking point. Heterosexual people do not typically want to be confused with homosexual people. For this reason, they do not want their unions to be confused with homosexual unions. In large part, this is the dominant reason why the population, with a very large majority (around 2/3), is not tolerant of laws that permit gay marriage.
It is not simply a change to the law. It is a change in the definition of the word. The word has always meant a union between a man and a woman. People are just not tolerant of having this word co-opted to represent an idea that they tolerate but do not embrace.
That large majority pretty much is inverted in most polls when you change only the law and not the word. When the idea is presented as permitting civil unions, support is at around 2/3. A civil union provides all the practical benefits of marriage, most of the rights and privileges, except the use of the word. Unfortunately for them, the gay lobby is not backing down on this point.
The result is that the mobilized majority is more than willing to fight over the word and rather broad state law has been drafted and passed that prevents not only marriage but civil unions as well (in some cases they even accidentally outlaw heterosexual marriage.) Insisting on using the word is the epitome of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face, putting style before substance. Or maybe not. Maybe what the gay lobby is fighting for is for the rest of us to embrace more than tolerate their lifestyle. Now is not the when that that will happen.
Not even in France
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't know about you guys, but my marriage was quite gay. Happy music, pretty flowers, good food at the reception... all helped to improve the gay event.
Now, on another note...
Heterosexuals fear homosexuals (after all, it might be catching) and therefore don't want to facilitate anything that might promote unnatural relationships and create uncomfortable family situations at the neighborhood pool or soccer fields. We don't want to explain to little Tommy or Cindy that it's OK for a man to love a man or a woman to love a woman (even though it's OK for Tommy to enjoy watching the later... once hes old enough).
Until the fear goes away, mainstream Joe Public ain't gonna oblige it...
... and besides, if heteros hold out long enough, maybe they'll find a cure...
I think it is more disgust than fear. Further, I think most people just don't care how other people live their lives so long as it doesn't affect their selves. Forcing them to think about it is one such unpalatable effect. Changing the definition of "marriage" forces people to think about it and that is why it is anathema.
Great work.
Post a Comment