Manhattan Sonata

UPDATE: I thought I'd add this video to watch. If you're viewing from facebook, you'll have to click "view original post" to access the video on my blog.



Many of us here at Columbia have been closely in-tune to the battles in California over Proposition 8. For those that don't know, Propsition 8 was a ballot measure brought about as a ban on gay marriage. Most unfortunately, the ballot passed. My initial reaction was anger. Needless to say I let out a rather long string of obscenities when I saw the final results on CNN. Now brace yourselves, kids. I'm about to rant. Probably for a long time.

In an election where we took a giant step forward in civil rights, we also took a giant step back. Remember those segregated water fountains? That time when women weren't allowed to exercise the right to vote? That time when people weren't allowed to marry the person that they're meant to spend the rest of their life with? Oh wait. I forgot. I guess that time is now.

The fact of the matter is that Proposition 8 is legislated segregation. Many people are taking the position that "California spoke." That's right, it did speak. The supreme court also spoke when Plessy v. Ferguson was passed. I don't think anybody would argue that that was the right decision. Marriage within the government, in purely legal terms, is a paper allowing rights between two individuals. The denial of those rights by the government to two people is unconstitional. Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, and a blatant act of discrimination.

Of course, many like to defend their positions against gay marriage by citing their faith and the Bible. Personally, I believe that the Bible is a book that teaches love over all. Each of the 7 "clobber passages" in the Bible frequently cited against homosexuals can all be interpreted differently, with the error of human translation getting in the way. I see no sexual perversion in two men or two women who love each other in the same way that a heterosexual couple does. The love is the same, and I believe that it is just as sacred.

However, even if you do believe that homosexuality is an abomonation, regardless, then you still have no founding against gay marriage. Those beliefs are yours, or those of your religious affiliation. Separation of Church and State is a very real and foundational concept within our government. The very churches that exist within our country depend upon it for their existance; however, most of these churches would have gay marriage banned. Doing so upon foundation of religious views undermines Separation of Church and State, the very thing which allows for the the independent existence of these churches and religious instutions. I take no issue with an individual or church not recognizing a gay marriage as sacred. That is the view of the individual or church alone. They have every right to it (also protected under Separation of Church and State). However, this is no reason to ban it within the government, a SEPARATE institution.

Many people prefer to remove the argument of religion in their opposition, recognizing it as a weak one; however, the general response is that of protection, saying, "gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage." It is my personal opinion that heterosexuals do a perfectly fine job of undermining traditional marriage on their own, what with the divorce rate at roughly 50%. If something is wrong with your marriage, then it's because of problems between YOU and YOUR SPOUSE. Can people honestly blame the problems of heterosexual marriage on gay marriage? To reference a comedy routine by Wanda Sykes, "are straight couples really in marriage counseling now saying, 'we just ain't been working together since Bill and Ted hooked up'?" I mean, really, people. And if by "undermine" you mean "make less sacred," then please see the paragraph above.

Lots of people support civil unions. While I take much less of an issue with civil unions, I still find them to be offensive. Civil unions, while giving LGBT couples many of the rights of a marriage, are still segregation. I like to compare them to Jim Crow Laws. They're separate, but "equal." Those water fountains that say "white" and "colored" overtop of them look oddly similar to this. After all, both whites and blacks had access to the right to drink out of a water fountain, but they were still forced to do so under separate labels. It is the same with the terms "marriage" and "civil union." I recognize that civil unions may be the next step in the path towards equal LGBT rights, but they are merely a step, and should not be satisfying.

Lastly, I turn to gay adoption. In Arkansas, a ballot measure was passed in which all "unmarried couples" were banned from adopting children. This originated as a means of banning gay adoption, as, of course, LGBT individuals cannot marry in Arkansas. I find the banning of gay adoption to be incredibly tragic. Not only is it tragic that two men or two women cannot adopt a child together, but it is also tragic for the children. There are thousands of children out there, looking for a loving home. Because of laws like these, more and more children will be left without a home, or will be bounced around in foster care. I do not, in any way, intend to knock foster care, as it is a wonderful thing that provides homes for children. It does not, however, provide continuity. Adoption allows for these children to find a home with people who will love them, and love them as a parent loves a child. Who is to say that a homosexual couple can't raise a child with the same love and care that a heterosexual couple can? These laws banning gay adoption rip apart the potential for so many loving families.

What I truly don't understand is why people take such an issue with gay marriage. It does not affect you. Why are people so concerned with messing with the lives of people that they don't even know? Why are people so adament about taking away the rights of another individual? Just because one loves someone of the same sex does not mean that their love is not pure. It doesn't mean that they're sexually perverse. It only means that, given the current state of things, they're not going to be able to exercise their full legal rights. Sure they could marry someone of the opposite sex, but what good is that going to do for any party involved? The bottom line is that people are prejudiced. They are afraid of what they're not used to. They're afraid of differences. Our country learned a hard lesson in that area about 50 years ago. I pray that we have not forgotten.

My hope is that this new administration can turn things around. It is very obvious to me that, as an overall population, young people feel very differently about gay rights. I think in a few years, as my generation begins to take control, things will be very different. Take a look at the media. We can see so many instances where LGBT individuals are displayed in a positive light, being shown to live lives no different that that of straight individuals. I'm so happy to see shows like "Brothers and Sisters" and "Grey's Anatomy" on television. Individuals like Ellen Degeneres, T.R. Knight, and many others are changing minds. These things show a trend in our nation leaning towards equality, but unfortunately we are not there yet. Proposition 8 showed us that. My heart goes out to those in California effected by this unbearable blow. Keep your chins up though. This fight isn't over.