reflections

the people of california have decided to not allow gay couples the right to marry. the question is, why are the rights of minorities being decided by majorities? if the people in the states of the south had voted on the legality of racial segregation, how do you think the vote would have went? for that matter, if most states in the not too distant past, had voted on the legality of interracial marriage, how do you think the vote would have went? we should not let people decide whether other people should have rights.

furthermore, it seems to me to be common sense that if someone is opposed to gay marriage, than they shouldn't marry a gay person. just as i, an english major, was opposed to science courses, and therefore, didn't take any. put simply, if a matter doesn't concern you, you shouldn't have a right to vote on it. in this case, progressive legislation is needed to guarantee equal treatment under the law for all people. equal treatment under the law is not a subject that should be determined by the states themselves. any student of the civil rights movement remembers the white south's cry of "states rights" as a rejoinder to those who wanted to end racial segregation.

now, those who are "defending" marriage claim that marriage is between a man and a woman. well, throughout much of the world, it is between a man and his many wives, or a woman and her many husbands, or between a spouse and the person/people the spouse is having an affair/s with, or between a husband and his abused wife, or between a wife and a deadbeat dad. doesn't seem like a system worthy of a strong defense. furthermore, they tell us that marriage is "sacred," and they go on about the "sanctity" of marriage, and finally, they stress the "traditional" meaning of marriage. well, the white south always talked about their traditions too. supposedly, jim crow was a part of their "heritage" and a fundamental aspect of their "way of life." so, what we have is tension between tradition on one side and rights on the other side. but what is tradition? honor killings of raped women is "tradition," but that doesn't mean that we should do it. lynchings were a "tradition" as well, but they are now largely frowned on. of course, marriage is a much better institution than honor killings and lynchings, and that is why we want to expand its availability. so, it seems clear to me that the right of gay people to get married should trump the tradition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. their rights trump our traditions. people can practice their traditions without taking away the rights of others. religious jews can practice their tradition by wearing small hats, but that doesn't mean secular jews need to. furthermore, straight people can practice their tradition by marrying other straight people, while gay people can exercise their rights by living with, and marrying, the partner of their choice.

furthermore, as a matter of a policy, we should never allow the oppressor to determine the rights of the oppressed. if men had voted on whether women should have the right to vote, they would never have gained the right to vote. as stated earlier, if whites had voted on racial segregation in the south, it likely never would have ended. it is up to government to ensure the rights of all of its citizens, and it is not up to majorities to vote on the rights of others.

name that speaker...

"today we send a clear message to all who have worn the uniform: thank you for your courage, thank you for your sacrifice, and thank you for standing up when your country needed you most."

"'let us praise the extraordinary service and selfless sacrifice of our nation's veterans. since 9/11, a new generation of american heroes has borne a heavy load in facing down the threats of the 21st century, and their families have been asked to bear the painful loss of a loved one. these americans are the best and bravest among us, and they are all in our thoughts and prayers."

perhaps due to the shorter length of the first quote, you guessed that bush made the first statement, and obama made the second statement. other than the superior flow of the latter remark, i don't sense much change here, do you?