Recently President Obama said (in contrast to prior statements) that he supports same-sex marriage. Calling attention to the fact that, for many Americans, the topic of marriage evokes "very powerful traditional and religious beliefs", Obama emphacized his view that "gay and lesbian" couples should be treated "equally."
There's a few problems with this approach. First of all, "same-sex" doesn't necessarily denote sexuality. Two straight people of the same-sex could marry as well, could they not? And think of how this would help say, two single mothers looking for greater tax breaks and insurance rates.
But there's something else to consider. The political wheel of the pro-gay movement doesn't stop at "gay and lesbian". The acronym L.G.B.T. doesn't just reference gay men and lesbian women. It includes "bisexual" and "transgender".
The recent changes in our military to allow homosexuals to serve openly was heralded by some as a step in the right civil rights direction. Arguments against it were viewed as "slippery slope" arguments and basically ignored by the powers that be.
And now we have an organization called the Service Members Legal Defense Network (SMLDN) arguing for equality for those transgenders who want access to the military.
The same can easily become an issue for those transgenders seeking marriage. Transgender doesn't necessarily point to people who actively seek sex change. It can also be applied to men- or women- who desire to maintain their birth gender while claiming to be of the opposite gender.
Talk about confusing!
And then there's the issue of bisexuals. Peter, Paul and Mary (not related to the singing group) should also have the right to marry, right? So polygamy or (in Mary's case) Polandary, have to be legalized as well.
Now some may say they have no issue with this. After all, whatever people want to do in private is their business, right? (If it's all about privacy why drag it out into the public forum?)
But wait! MOST POLYGAMISTS are not secular people. Most practice for religious reasons. So now we will have the state sanctioning religion? Shouldn't the ACLU be screaming?
Personally, if two people want to live their lives a specific way, and they honor their own privacy, that's one thing. But the moment you go public with what should be private and CAN be private (like sexuality, religion, food preferences...) you leave yourself open for scrutiny. Maybe it seems unfair but it really isn't.
No black kid ever had to come home and tell his parents: "hey Mom and Dad I'm black!" No handicapped person has to tell their boss: "I wear a brace".
President Obama is using this issue to try and reclaim a base that he has basically ignored, other than to toy with the military.
It's convenient. Too convenient.
No comments:
Post a Comment