What bothered me was an interview that was conducted in 1967 with the president of the Mattachine Society (I can’t remember which city). He told the interviewer (from CBS News, I think) that homosexuals didn’t want the right to marry. I suppose that when the very act of homosexuality illegal (as well as cross dressing), and for just being gay you could be beaten and thrown in jail…. Then being able to marry was a bit of a reach.
I only got to watch an hour, but it was a powerful hour. I can see how far things have come, but I can also see how far they have to go.
On the drive here, I began to think (as I am prone to do when driving). I really can’t find one convincing argument against gay marriage. Oh, the people who are anti-equality have many arguments, but none of them hold water.
- It’s against biblical teaching. Well… since the argument is about LAW and not religion.… the argument is invalid.*
- Churches everywhere will have to perform marriages they don’t agree with. Well, I don’t think so. I think any church, anywhere has the right to pass on performing a wedding. However the Justice of the Peace is an option!
- It will ruin the institution of marriage. I have NO idea how it would. I mean, serial monogamists (Elizabeth Taylor, Larry King, Hugh Heffner) and people who are married for a few hours (Brittney Spears) and Mormon Polygamists haven’t already ruined the institution?
We as a country oppressed African Americans (first as slaves, then as free citizens), women, Catholics, the Irish, Jews, Muslims (post 9/11 if you even looked Arab it was bad. Sikhs got it really bad) and gays. It’s only really gotten better for Catholics and the Irish and Jews.
I will still be here, to be a calm voice of reason in the face of the violent hate speech. For as long as it takes.
*Ok.. separation of church and state isn't in the 1st amendment... but it does say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In my religion we believe in the "The inherent worth and dignity of every person;" and the "Justice, equity and compassion in human relations..." So according to the 1st amendment, (which was interpreted in 1994) concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." So to bring religion in the argument would pit one religion against another in a matter of law, and according to Justice David Souter, is against the 1st Amendment.