Just Say No to “Gay Marriage”

Those who accept evil without protesting
against it are really cooperating
with it.
—Martin Luther King, Jr.
Many people in the United States, it seems, may not have
been exposed to, and so don’t realize, the quality of hatred
often directed toward people who are homosexual. Following
an online news article about the failure to repeal
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, some of the comments were:
“No gay sex. No @#% marriage. Anyone that supports
such a thing needs to realize that there is more than just
them at stake. Saddam Hussian will be getting out of jail
soon. He hates @&#!&!*. He will launch a preemptive
strike against America and kill us all over a few @&#!&!*.
God hates @&#!&!*. If you support @#% marriage then
you are an atheist. That’s (sic) what God says, not me. Any
support for the @&#!&! means you burn in hell with
Hitler, Ronald Reagen and George Burns.”
“Let them in [the military]! Send them to the Navy.
Assign them as lookouts on the outboard sides of lowered
flight deck elevators at sea in the North Atlantic. High sea
state. All ahead Flank II! Hard to Starboard! Problem
solved. It wouldn’t be the first time.”
“When will the GAY community get it that they are not
welcome in the military or anywhere else for that matter?
Yes they have rights as much as anyone else but come on…
wanting special recognition and treatment because you’re
GAY??? Get serious.”
“I served in the military and personally, I wouldn’t want
to share a foxhole with someone who is gay…I’d probably
windup shooting the SOB!”
“I am gay [and in the military] and I agree that this
should not be repealed but kept in place. … Thank God
the Republicans were willing to stop this from going
through. Come November we will be sending you more
help to end this tyrannical Democrat reign.”
What’s most disheartening or baffling about such ignorance
is not simply that it exists but that the general run of
people, many of whom understand the legal necessity of
recognizing the human rights of all people, nevertheless
are choosing to enter into a de facto alliance with bigots,
just as Martin Luther King Jr. described, “History will have
to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social
transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people,
but the appalling silence of the good people.”
I do not intend by this to equate the historical experience
of one social group with another but, then as now,
there are assuredly people who want to deny rights to others.
They can be found on the Internet and on the Southern
Poverty Law Center’s list of hate groups, as well as
among those who blithely say “gay marriage is wrong” is
“just their opinion.” Never mind that the absurd phrase
“gay marriage” is misinformed, as it suggests some special
category of marriage is being asked for. People who are
homosexual are simply asking for “marriage.”
In the face of this, we can (1) legally recognize the already
existing human right to marriage, as guaranteed in Article
16 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. We could (2) repeal the 14th amendment (i.e., abolish
the principle of law that all are equal before it), or (3) we
could abolish marriage as a category of Law entirely.
As a fourth option, I propose that those who advocate
not recognizing the right to marry for any person of marriageable
age shall not be permitted to marry or will have
any preexisting union dissolved until their advocacy ceases.
So also if they promote civil unions instead of marriage,
they shall be permitted civil unions only. This rule should
apply only to the universal human right of marriage, but
other universal human rights similarly being institutionally
overlooked might be protected in this way. If joining the
military is deemed such a right, then people who advocate
that anyone otherwise eligible to be in the service should
be excluded from the service would be similarly not
allowed to join or would be discharged and denied access
to resources former military are normally allowed (e.g.,
pensions, VA services, etc).
Those who might object to this proposal as revenge
have mistaken reciprocity for reprisal. Similarly, it is not a
retroactive correction as it operates only on those currently
advocating the denial of recognized human rights.
Even in the context of today’s covert and overt racism,
voicing the notion that people should not intermarry is all
but universally recognized as ignorant backwardness, and
there are justly and serious social consequences for freely
“expressing such an opinion” (i.e., advocating such a
denial of a basic human right). Because such social clarity
is not recognized with respect to people who are homosexual,
the direct and unambiguous consequences above for
naively thinking denying people’s rights is “just expressing
an opinion” should help that clarity. Human rights are not
a matter of opinion.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”
(Martin Luther King, Jr.). Thus there is a link between “just
expressing an opinion” that is morally equivalent to racism
and the ongoing reduction of civil liberties both in daily
life and on the Internet that has accelerated since 9/11.
Perhaps soon people who are not homosexual will realize
that ensuring the legal recognition of the rights of people
who are homosexual is in their own self-interest after all.