Arguments against gay marriage sound suspiciously like those against the civil rights movement.
By: Hank Kalet
Bob Herbert in The New York Times offers a voice of reason among all the hysteria surrounding the gay marriage debate in this column.
"In the United States, many people are still uncomfortable with the idea of two men holding hands (unless it’s in a football huddle) or two women kissing," he writes. "Sex between people of the same gender remains a major taboo. And the notion of gay marriage, viewed as an abomination by a huge swath of the electorate, is threatening to become a decisive element in the presidential campaign.
"In a country that is quick to celebrate the rights of the individual and the ideals of freedom, real tolerance is often hard to come by."
And he takes on the arguments against allowing gays to marry, essentially condemning them to the trash heap of history, where they surely will end up.
The fact is, the opponents of gay marriage are on the wrong side of history here (as Frank Rich points out), as they were when they opposed the civil rights movement and interracial marriage. Polls show that younger voters have no problem with the idea of gay marriage, that it is the older generation that is getting worked up over it. And those older folks are going to die off, allowing the debate to change.
In the meantime, supporters of the civil rights of gay couples need to stand strongly against the Right’s push for a constitutional amendment.
The amendment is dangerous because it is incredibly divisive and designed more for political purposes than to advance any real public policy. It is a sop to the right wing and religious conservatives and nothing more.
And, one more thing, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would only be the second time in American history that the amendment process was used to limit an individual’s rights the first, prohibiting alcohol production and consumption didn’t exactly go too well and was ultimately repealed.
Something definitely worth remembering.