Douglas Dickinson
Art 3170-03
29 Oct 2020
The debate over Gay Marriage has been shaped by many different factors over the millennia in which civilization itself has been a part of world history. This debate revolves around one undeniable factor: conservatives and their irrational fear of those that are different from them. And by different, I mean Liberals and their perceived desire to force their way of life on the general public. While most gays aren't all necessarily left of the political aisle (Log Cabin Republicans, anyone?), it is the fact that gays themselves run afoul of that almighty book that just isn't to be questioned: the Bible. Oh, heavens, he utters such blasphemy! Well, being that we live in such a monotheistic society that is patriarchal in nature, it should not have been shocking to learn that the United States Supreme Court only legalized gay marriage back in 2015. Well, better late than never, right? So why such opposition? Why would the average individual out there care whether two men or women wanting to get married? What is it to them? As we shall see, many factors do indeed go into why such an opposition lasted for so long (and in some ways, still does) in this country. And it is not surprising that attitudes regarding same-sex marriage seem to ebb and flow depending on who's in the White House. According to one source I found, attitudes regarding gay marriage depends on the make-up of the American public as far as demographics are concerned. Public opinion itself can definitely be tied to religious affiliations. Is it a coincidence that attitudes towards gay marriage moved left of the political aisle in the mid to late 70s but then moved back in the other direction during the Regan 80s? To show the impact on the American public of the Regan era Moral Majority is easy to do. Jerry Falwell Sr. was largely responsible for such bigotry. And it was Ronald Regan himself that went along with it. Using his influence and connections, Falwell wreaked havoc on the American Public of the 1980s with anti-gay legislation that lasted well into the Clinton era of Presidental politics. DAMA from the mid-90s is proof enough. But still, the shifting of American values does ebb and flow depending on who is in the White House. Going back to Falwell,
he was a guy who was in his late 40s/early 50s when he appeared on the scene next to Regan. Growing up in the late 1930s/early '40s meant that times were more conservative back then. In the 1950's he founded his first church that went on to become a mega-church. Now he can hate in mega style! Times back then were much more conservative than they are now. Once the left-leaning 80s rolled around, meaning MTV and the like, Falwell had seen too much debauchery and decided to act. Religious guys like him believed that conservative family values will bring stability to the American home, whatever that is. But it is good news to the gay marriage supporter that since the 1970s, Americans are less inclined to suppress the right of gays and lesbians with good reason: they are gay! It is who they are. I once heard a joke about how the gay community. Want to hear it? Either people are gay or the gay community itself is a result of a massive conspiratory being perpetrated on the American public. Of course, this is nonsense. This issue, as we will see, is important to me for several reasons. Being that people are as gay as I am straight, to deprive these individuals on moral grounds is patently absurd. The fact that gay marriage offends an individual's sensibilities is laughable to me. And then to quote the bible is also problematic. The Bible may be an important source of guidance in the life of many people, it is nonetheless just a book that was written by a number of individuals. So whether one is referring to the J source, the D source, the P source or whatever, it is nevertheless a book written by people like you and me. These writers, why highly skilled at telling stories, such as The Book of Job, are expressing opinions, just like yours truly with this Blog post. To put forth the Bible as the end-all-to-be-all source of knowledge runs counter to what a Democracy is all about: the sharing of opinions with the understanding that your opinion is not better than mine.
It is not surprising that research into attitudes concerning gay marriage break down over lines of gender, political, age, and level of education. After all, old ways clash with new ways, correct? And education can most definitely shape the mind of anyone that pursues it. It seems somewhat predictable that liberal Protestants along with those that don't subscribe to any particular religion are the ones that lean left when it comes to their views on gay marriage while Catholics and more right-leaning Protestants tend to oppose gay marriage. And of course, it is Evangelical Protestants that oppose gay marriage the most which can be blamed on upbringing and, yes, that almighty book, the Bible. And not surprisingly, the more an individual commits to interacting with the gay community, the more that person develops an understanding of the goings-on of the community itself. Sounds pretty simple to me. Such times can show that opposition to gay marriage is more a conservative issue than a liberal one. More specifically, an individual can oppose gay marriage on religious liberty grounds, a hot button issue of our current days. The conservative will say that he or she does not give two cents whether gays marry or not. What they do care about is their so-called right being infringed upon, but such rights are not grounded in reality.
The worst kind of opposition to gay marriage comes in the form of gay unions. My own Aunt and Uncle believe in this nonsense. Give gays all the legal benefits and allow them to live together and all that but don't call it gay marriage. Because to do so would offend the word of God. What God? God is an abstract construct of society. He (or she?) was created to control the masses that were not in-line with the conservative patriarchal times that came to be during Classical times. How are civil unions the same as outright marriage? The two, of course, are distinctly different.
Finally, to make the point that same-sex marriage should be seen on the same level as traditional marriage, consider this point: what if the same opposition to gay marriage was put on traditional marriage? It is this type of argument that puts into sharp relief how absurd such a resistance to gay marriage is. It is only because such historical and statistical evidence exists that was then twisted up into opposition that opposition to gay marriage exists in the first place. Think about that as I end this essay: it is much easier to be in the statistical majority than it is to be in the minority. Strength in numbers, right?
Gay marriage is important to me for one obvious reason: Being gay is who they are. I once heard a joke regarding the gay community. Either people are really gay or straight guys and gals are perpetrating a massive conspiracy on the general public. Of course not, right? Being who we are is a basic right that cannot be denied based on what "the Good Book" says. I find it astounding that the basic rights of any average human being are to be denied due to the sensibilities of whatever individual out there. Nevermind your sensibilities!
Works Cited
Olsen, Laura R., et al. "Religion and Public Opinion About Same-Sex Marriage?" Social Science Quarterly, vol. 87, no. 1, 2006, pp. 340-360.
Isailovic, Ivana. "Same Sex but Not the Same: Same-Sex Marriage in the United States and France and the Universalist Narrative." The American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 66, no. 2, 2018, pp. 267-315.
No comments:
Post a Comment