GOODRIDGE IS GOOD: Mike Pignatello
I have no doubt that those who want to keep the marriage club closed really believe they are "protecting" the institution. However, as we've all learned in history, laws are created by a ruling class to define the terms of living for others. Civil marriage in the turn-of-the-century U.S. was designed to enforce the religious morality of the majority and to codify (in the law) racial and civilizational superiority. Thankfully, we have as a nation succeeded in decodifying moral requirements for marriage. There are no longer state-run litmus tests by race, ethnicity, or national origin for determining who can create a civil marriage.
Preventing same-sex marriage by law is all about re-codifying morals--something the state has moved away from for the past 50 years. Whose morals will we codify? Why should the rest of society be beholden to others' narrow list of "fundamentals" that define marriage? Society shouldn't be required to adhere to limited value systems, especially when the introduction of SSM does not prevent or change opposite-sex marriage while its prohibition severely restricts the rights of another group. Granting civil rights is not a zero-sum game.
And again, as Mark Tardiff shows, the real issue here is that many opponents of SSM disapprove of homosexuality: "
They want society, through its laws, to teach that homosexual relationships are as acceptable as heterosexual relationships." Not accepting gay relationships (in any form) is a real hindrance to finding a compromise on this issue, if one exists!
posted by Eve at
8:34 PM | link
Post a Comment
<< Home