Spring Break
"Stub Hill" by Dr. Pangloss
Basic human rights should apply to all human beings
John Henley
Issue date: 3/5/04 Section: Lifestyles
|
But I can't think of one good reason why I should be forced to accept people that are so different from myself. Of course, I was taught to like everyone, no matter how different they were.
Most of us were brought up in this way, to a certain extent, anyway. In much of our present society, there are consequences for those who do not, at the very least, tolerate diversity. Or is there?
The subject of gay marriages has been in the news of late, what with President Bush proposing a possible constitutional amendment to protect marriage. Oregon is just the latest state to throw their hat in the ring and challenge established norms by allowing same-sex marriages.
And why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry in any state if they so choose?
No, I'm not gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. However, I am a firm believer in human rights. Of course, there is the issue of civil unions. Isn't that a legitimate compromise? I can't necessarily say because I'm not gay, but should people have to settle for a compromise, especially when the issue is one of basic freedoms and/or rights?
The majority of resistance to the idea of same-sex marriages is coming from the conservatives. Yes, there was already a law passed in May of 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states from "having to give 'full faith and credit' to Hawaii's interpretation of what constitutes 'marriage.'"
It's really kind of funny if you think about it. Marriage is running around with a chastity belt in order to protect itself from consummation. Of course, the same-sex marriage court battles basically died in Hawaii in 1997 after seven years of litigation. But I submit that the only reason we have an act that "defends marriage" is because the majority of our elected officials are afraid they'll be voted out of office if they don't oppose same-sex marriages.
But the real issue is: Why was this ever put to a vote? How is it that people ever took it upon themselves to decide whether a basic freedom and/or right was extended to a subgroup of the population?
If I'm not mistaken, we've been through this before: group "A", which is not representative of group "B," deciding what rights that group "B" is and is not entitled to.
