To err is human.
In the wake of the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that it is contrary to the state’s constitution to deny civil marriage licenses to same sex couples, there has been some backlash from social conservatives. The governor of Massachusetts has encouraged an amendment to the constitution that would define marriage as “a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.” (gay.com)
There are some who think that gay Americans should back down from marriage and accept a “separate but equal” solution in the name of fostering better relations with our adversaries. While it sounds logical on the surface, I think such a move would be a mistake. Making that kind of concession would send the wrong message to society, and would only make future advances more difficult by setting a precedent of separate but equal. I, for one, am opposed to anything that is tantamount to an admission that my love, my life and my relationships are inferior to anyone else’s.
I’m sure there are some who will find my next comment unbelievable and un-homosexual, but so what if an amendment is passed? How long to do think it will really stand? It wouldn’t be the first time social conservatives managed to pass an amendment to the Constitution only to have it repealed a few years later because it was a stupid idea to begin with. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying we should take this lying down. The religious wrong are fighting a losing war and they know it. This push for a Consitutional amenedment is an absurd act of desperation. What I am saying it won’t be the end of the world if they actually win this one battle. I’m saying backing down from our expectation of full equality is the wrong tactic to employ in our defense.
Leave a Reply