In their long war against what they see as the encroaching "gay special interest agenda," conservatives have often displayed a visceral aversion to the very recognition of homosexuality itself. President Bush's recent proposal to constitutionally limit marriage to heterosexuals continues the right-wing trend of relegating homosexuals to the status of second-class citizens, deprived of some of their most fundamental rights simply out of ignorance and intolerance. But no less than President Bush, Americans as a whole must come to terms with their feelings about homosexuality, especially as they relate to our country's commitment to guaranteeing fundamental, unalienable rights to every citizen. Thus, the recent emergence of gay marriage as a serious issue in the political realm has been a boon to all those concerned with civil rights in America, as it serves to finally expose the sole rationale our society has for withholding this and an array of other basic rights to homosexuals: pure, unadulterated bigotry.
What many people do not understand is that homophobia does not only mean the blind, conscious hatred of homosexuals. It also includes the willingness to deny them equal rights on the basis of instinctual suspicions of homosexuality that, no matter how deep-seated, are nonetheless essentially irrational. It's fair to say that there are few rights that can be said to be more fundamental to us as people or as citizens than the right to be with the ones we love. Given this, there is no more purely rational basis for granting the government the authority to choose what sex one's spouse must be than there is to let it dictate what race they must be as well.
Almost every contemporary conservative argument against gay marriage is either rooted in sectarian religious claims about the "order of nature" and more such God-talk (thus taking advantage of the conservatives' exclusive hotline to Jesus) or, more often, just plain, ol' fashioned bigotry, suspicion or distrust of homosexuality that masquerades as a righteous crusade to protect the so-called "institution" of marriage. Depending on who you listen to, conservatives usually claim that the legalization of gay marriage would destroy American society, threaten the continuation of Western civilization, encourage others -- especially young children! -- to be gay or lead to a constitutional crisis. They cry that granting homosexuals equal rights will further the "moral decay" of the nation. This group consists principally, but not exclusively, of the evangelical Christian right, headed by such paragons of understanding and tolerance as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (both of whom have, in the past, called AIDS God's response to homosexuality).
More level-headed Americans must come to recognize that all citizens have an equally legitimate right to have their partnership with their loved one recognized by the very government in which they're allegedly represented. Recognizing homosexual partnerships -- whether under the title of "marriage," "civil union" or whatever -- is neither some harbinger of the destruction of society nor a death knell to the continued popularity of heterosexual relationships or marriages. Legalizing some acceptably named form of homosexual partnership would merely endow homosexuals with the same rights to partnership as heterosexuals, as well as allow them access to the thousands of responsibilities and protections that state and federal laws afford all couples on the basis of marital status (a full enumeration of those marriage benefits is available from the Human Rights Campaign, at www.hrc.org).
What certainly is a danger to our society is determining through polls and elections which groups we'll grant equality to and which ones we won't. Marriage is as much a civil right as voting or free speech, and civil rights are guaranteed to us all, regardless of gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. Holding approval of gay relationships hostage to the whims of a largely prejudiced majority is as dangerous a policy today as it was in the 1960s and before, when the enforcement of other civil rights had to be literally forced upon the states.
It's no secret by now that the GOP plans to use homosexuality as a wedge issue in the upcoming presidential election -- a strategy premised on the assumption that playing on many Americans' fear, misunderstanding and (for some) outright hatred of gays and lesbians will overcome the likely Democratic nominee's message of equal rights and acceptance. Of course, no one can be surprised that Republicans have once again shown themselves willing to appeal to the basest prejudices of the American public to advance themselves politically. Let's just hope that calmer (and truly compassionate) minds prevail over the conservative loudspeaker of homophobia and intolerance.
(Blair Reeves's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at breeves@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
