-Consenting adult (and within this category is the objective standard of the requisite ability to consent, i.e., much greater care must be exercised when a marriage/sex act would occur between a mentally retarded or developmentally delayed individual and one of objectively average capacity);
-Over the age of 18 (preferred, not mandatory);
-Human being (I don't really know what to make of bestiality other than it seems like animals, biologically speaking, would be at least confused and probably not down with the whole plan).
That's pretty much my list. Just as Loving vs. Virginia announced a fundamental right to marry an individual of another race a generation ago, I eagerly await the Supreme Court to do the same when the question of gay marriage is presented to them in the next year or so by (of course you guessed it!) Ted Olson. (Remember, Justice Kennedy, the constant swing vote, generally has liberal leanings on social issues.) Among these exciting times, however, raises the obvious question: who should support such a change?
If you've seen some news recently, it seems as though at least Michael Irvin is on board. And not only is he trumpeting his personal belief in the institution, he has called out all African-Americans to join this rally. Yes, this is the same Michael Irvin who, for about the past 25 years, has lived in America's spotlight as a loudmouthed, uber-talented wide receiver at the University of Miami and later with the Dallas Cowboys, winning rings, flagrantly womanizing, and blazing through enough cocaine to make Lindsey Lohan blush. Though I doubt that he is gay (I really have no idea, nor does it matter), his argument is as apt as it is simple: African-Americans have been struggling for equality in America since its inception, and that not supporting gay marriage would be the equivalent to denying similarly and historically disadvantaged individuals akin to what Strom Thurmond and the other filibuster-ers did during the Kennedy and Johnson presidencies. Strong words from an interesting man.
I certainly agree with Mike. But really, I'd like to generate my own little rant. Traditionally, gay sex and gay marriage has not been accepted by conventional custom because, it seems to me, conventional custom can't seem to separate love from sex. Imagine the following hypo: Steve (a homophobe) and his wife go sightseeing with Bill and Jay (gay partners). Steve does not know that they are gay nor that they enjoy an active sex life. They hit the Liberty Bell, Independence Mall, the whole nine. Afterwards, everyone heads home. Do think Steve is freaked out or concerned? Of course not. So, why is the knowledge of their relationship and its characteristics the issue? My argument is that it is conventional custom/Steve's inability to not think about the actual act of Bill and Jay making love. And the thing that frustrates me the most is that I am pretty sure not a lot of folks (family, friends, co-workers, whatever) spend a lot of time or lose a lot of sleep over what Steve and his wife do in the bedroom. So, how hypocritical and non-sensical is it for conventional custom to penalize Bill and Jay from enjoying a healthy and officially recognized (yes, the tax breaks, estate issues, everything) because of its obsession with the way they express themselves physically when no one has ever placed such a scarlet letter on their breast?
Looking at it from another angle, how many times have you known someone- gay or straight- who gets involved in a relationship with someone you don't like or approve of? (Every time we go out to dinner from here on out, you are going to bring HIM along?!?!). While we may utter our breath, I doubt that too many of us actually raise a big stink during the whole "speak now or forever hold your peace" schpiel when the time comes. Who on earth are we to simply not allow one of our friends or family members find that special place with their special person?
To conclude my rant, let me just reiterate the point that it is neither right nor fair to mandate who those closest to you may or may not love. In my experience, it's not really a choice, anyway. How many times have you heard, "I just CANNOT believe I am going back to her," only to have an ill-fated love rekindled above your objections. Love is an intrinsic, uncoachable, often inescapable rapture that can't be molded to whim. With that said, how many homosexual individuals do you think would, if able, snap their fingers, become straight, and just marry someone of the opposite gender because of the convenience derived from societal approval? Not all, of course, but I am sure some. But, like love, sexual orientation cannot be simply be chosen or turned on or off like a light switch. With that indisputable truth, who are we to deny it?
No comments:
Post a Comment