Keep Hope for the Future

In this tumultuous political environment that exists today, it seems as though little progress will be accomplished nationwide in the elections of 2010 (when referring to legalizing gay marriage).  Problems continue to crop up in states across the country, most notably in Iowa, which just recently accepted an amendment to the State Constitution that legalized gay marriage.  Searching the news today, I discovered this story of how a man is having to fight to keep his spouse in the United States, since the man is a citizen of Venezuela.  Though I cannot relate to the situation, I couldn't imagine the feeling of losing your spouse from your life simply because tat spouse is of the same-sex.  The Progressive movement overall seems to be coming to a short-lived end, after reviving itself two years ago in the 2008 elections.  

Though this does not spell doom for nation-wide gay marriage.  While there is a more traditionalist social backlash occurring at this time, international pressure from Europe and Latin America along with domestic gay activists and portions of the press have begun to squeeze the Supreme Court of the United States.  With the pressure growing, it seems as though the Court will be forced to review the definition of marriage soon.  A positive decision on the legality of gay marriage could result in the spread of equality in other nations, such as the United Kingdom.  

I believe that the American government, no matter which branch or level is prompted into action first, will eventually do what is right and nationally legalize same-sex marriage.  Though we remain an unequal society now, eventually there will be freedom nationwide for gays to marry and hold the same rights as heterosexual spouses.

Gay Marriage is not a liberal or conservative issue, it's a human rights issue.

This video from The Huffington Post beautifully displays how issues of human rights are not just liberal or conservative issues; they breach the gap and deal with humanity itself.  As a self-proclaimed left-wing progressive, I can honestly say that I was in a state of disbelief when I stumbled upon this video--a conservative openly supporting same-sex marriage in this political environment?  Though I quickly recognized that my reaction was unfair to Olson.  Why should he be opposed to letting same-sex couples obtain the same rights that other citizens have?  It dawned on me upon thinking of this that, though Olson and I are very different in terms of politics, we can agree that everyone deserves natural humans rights.  To see others from a seemingly alien moral background or cultural background come together over basic issues like this can hopefully pull even the most pessimistic individual out of their nihilism.

Self-Analysis

Looking back to when I began this project in early October, I realize that my knowledge of the topic and the lens from which I view the school of thought from have immensely broadened over time.  Though I cannot claim that I am some sort of expert on the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage, I have gained much knowledge over this process of research and have discovered subconscious biases within my previous mindset.

To become more informed on gay marriage and the fight over legalization, I followed many different sources: blogs written by members of the intelligentsia, political commentary sites, etc.  I followed Commentators such as Glenn Greenwald or Andrew Sullivan regularly.  Though both of these men discuss a broad arrange of topics and are politically opposite of one another, they both are gay and will sometimes address the issue that I cover.  I find their perspectives fascinating, and reading their work enlightened me to recognize that sexuality does not rigidly follow the American political spectrum.  Before I started this blog, I tended to lump conservatives, particularly social conservatives, into a homogeneous group, since most of the social conservatives that I have met in my life have held quite similar views.  Though after conducting research, I have realized over the course of the month that not all social conservatives are against gay rights and that my thinking was mainly an unfair generalization.

Besides following blog commentators, I also frequently searched sites such as The Huffington Post and Politico.  Since I read material from these sites on a regular basis, along with articles from the New York Times and NPR, it is easy for me to locate related material for the blog.  These sites have an array of writers and commentators who post unbiased articles with intellectual content, so I find sources from these sites to be quite handy.

As I continued to research the battle over the moral difficulties of allowing same-sex marriage, I couldn’t help but notice the trends that went with the argument.  Almost all of the commentators who argued against legalization used religious testimonies for the backbone of their arguments.  This led me to conclude that, similar to my earlier postulation of conservatives, right wing Christians were all against marriage equality.  This assumption however, proved to not entirely be true—I was generalizing.  After speaking with some self-identified conservative Christians in my local field of study, I realized that though many of them did not agree with the morality of same-sex marriages due to passages such as this in the Bible, they recognize that their religious views should not affect secular same-sex marriages due to the First Amendment.  So though these individuals identify with a group that is generally seen as an opponent to legalization, they themselves do not oppose legalization due to the recognition that the law does not apply to them.  Not only did I discover a bias within my way of thinking from this experience, but I also learned to hold more respect for people whose opinion differ from my own.

            I think writing this blog has been a very positive experience for me, both intellectually and personally.  I hope that you have enjoyed following this blog and will continue to read my posts.  Thank you.

Peer Blogs that You Should Read

1) Algae: Powering the Future?
Though personally interested in social sciences, reading humanmachine's research on algae as an alternate energy has certainly broadened my perspective on what is possible in terms of energy sources for the future.  We, as a civilization, need to stop tapping into fossil fuels before it is too late to preserve our natural environment.

2) What the Frack?
What can I say about What the Frack?  Houston Brown's lengthy and humorous posts present the dangers of fracking in an interesting and informative format.  I would definitely recommend checking this blog out!

3) The Border: Where Immigration and Race Meet
I find Mr. Señor's posts on issues of immigration very informative.  Prior to following this blog, I had not given illegal immigration or contemporary racial discrimination much thought.  However, reading this blog has given me new insight and interest in the issue.

All Eyes to New York

The battlefield over legalizing gay marriage is heating up in New York.  Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo has stated that he will prioritize getting a bill passed before the end of 2011 that will legalize gay marriage in the state of New York. Celebrities, like Alec Baldwin in the video above, have also come out to support the legalization in New York, along with political action groups.  However, there is steep opposition for passing such a bill from the Upstate New York population.  These rural areas are more socially conservative than America's largest city to the south.  The political divisions between the two regions of the state should create an interesting scenario in the coming year.  New York's decision on legalizing gay marriage will likely effect other states who are considering similar legislation, so it is important that this bill comes into being and becomes law.

All-inclusive Resolutions?

            It is without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, and in the minds of other commentators and organizations, that there will be a national bill or amendment to the Constitution passed in the coming years that will universally legalize gay marriage within the United States.  Though this statement may leave you with the assumption that the issue itself will be resolved if such a bill were to be passed, this assumption is far from the truth.  Sometimes congressional or judicial actions do not agree with the plurality opinion from the American public.  Just because gay marriage might become nationally recognized doesn’t mean that the American populace would universally accept it.  In fact, in some of the more conservative states, an increase in the amount of hate crimes or violent reactionary aggression might be seen following a nation-wide declaration of gay marriage.

            The rift over the morality of gay marriage must be resolved before the issue can be put to rest.  As I suggested in my last post, a legalization of gay secular marriage would be one step closer into purging homophobia from the our country.  While some dislike the gay community because of their own interpretations of their faith system, others hate homosexuals or bisexuals because of a lack of understanding.  The media spreading more unbiased information on what being a homosexual or bisexual is to the general public could solve this ignorance that is leading to violent incidents.  Forcing those who is disagree to see that sexuality is not a choice*, just like eye color, height, and skin color, will severely weaken the argument that “queer” living is unnatural.

* This source primarily focuses on helping parents understand their children if they are bisexual or gay; however, it hones in on the issue

Possible Compromise?

As mentioned in a previous post of mine, there are many different perspectives one can take on the issue of whether same-sex marriage is something that should be banned.   Since the front of the debate sits mainly between the progressive movement, backed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, and the fundamental Christians, backed by their faith, the debate is highly polarized and emotionally based (in fact, it is hard to analyze this issue without bringing in an emotional stance to the floor). 

The sides argue this: the progressives say that same-sex marriage should be completely legalized because it is a violation of human rights to deny gay couples the same privileges that married straight couples have in contemporary times.  Those in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage also point to the opposing side’s use of religion to justify their stance as a violation of Constitutional rights, according to the First Amendment.  Finally, progressives cite the success of legalizing gay marriage in other countries around the world (such as South Africa, Argentina, or Norway) as motivators for having America do the same.

The Christian fundamentalists who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage mainly claim that marriage between the same sex, or homosexuality in general, is a sin against God.  This claim is justified to them with excerpts from the Bible (the site I draw this source from obviously holds bias).  These excerpts are questioned by some though, for some more open-minded Christians believe that these passages are taken out of context (again, this site also holds bias, but it is difficult to discuss religious opinions objectively).  They also argue that tolerating gay marriage destroys the foundations of society by delivering the message that homosexuality is something to promote.

The debate over legalizing gay marriage remains an extremely polarized issue in the general public.  Though the hopes of having a consensus of philosophical acceptance in the near future is not feasible, a possible compromise could be made that would solve the debate politically.  The compromise would be to simply legalize secular gay marriage.  If a marriage is secular, then, to the church’s eye, God does then not recognize it.  So if the religious fundamentalists are not willing to negotiate opening the religious definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships, then maybe forging a law or amendment to the Constitution that would allow secular same-sex marriages to be nationally preformed might be a middle ground.  This way, gay couples could enjoy the rights that straight couples have, such as tax cuts or hospital visitation rights, without disturbing the wishes of the religious right. 

Mental Breather!

Brain is dead. I finded funny video so you laugh at people getting hurt! Watch:

Cuomo's Promise

Changing focus from the religious battlefield to the political front, New York Gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo (nominee of the Democratic Party) recently declared that he will legalize gay marriage once elected governor.  Cuomo was quoted at the ESPA fall dinner: “I don't want to be the governor who just proposes marriage equality.  I don't want to be the governor who lobbies for marriage equality.  I don't want to be the governor who fights for marriage equality.  I want to be the governor who signs the law that makes equality a reality in the state of New York.”

            And Cuomo’s words might come to be.  Polls indicate that he holds a distant lead over his GOP opponent, Carl Paladino.  Paladino has been heavily criticized recently for his anti-gay remarks in a discussion with Orthodox Jewish leaders.  Regarding gay marriage, Paladino said: “I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option.”

            In our more socially progressive states, this kind of homophobic talk is proving to work against the politicians who facilitate discriminatory views.  Most of the northeastern states have lifted the ban on gay marriage. New York further liberating their position from just acknowledging same-sex marriages that were performed elsewhere would create a huge boost in momentum for the movement to legalize gay marriage nationally.  Hopefully, Cuomo will live up to his promises, as it seems he will become governor of New York with ease.

Analysis Post on Gay Marriage

            Though a relatively new debate in the national political realm, the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage across the United States has exploded into the public conscience over the past two decades.  Before the 2000’s, same-sex marriage was banned universally across the country.  America is still far behind other parts of the world in terms of this social movement.  Western Europe launched an early start in equalizing the status of gay couples.  Denmark allowed civil unions between gay couples in 1989, which granted them equal rights with married couples under Danish law.  The Netherlands became the first state to fully recognize same-sex marriages on April 1, 2001.  After the legalization in the Netherlands, many other countries in Western Europe and some in other parts of the world began to legalize gay marriage. 

The United States, however, though a world leader, has yet to nationally declare same-sex marriage legal.  The issue first came into national attention when a court case rocked Hawaii in 1993 over the issue of defining marriage.  A reactionary conservative response created the first “defense of marriage” in 1996, which then spread like wild fire across the United States—other states did not wish to have to deal with the questioning of their constitutions.   The debate crystallized for a few years until 2003, when a state finally recognized same-sex marriage. Massachusetts became the first to recognize gay marriage, deciding in Goodridge vs. Mass that excluding rights from a single group, such as the gay community, was unconstitutional.  The Massachusetts Constitution was amended to refine the definition of marriage to: “Marriage.  The same laws and procedures that govern traditional marriage also apply to same-sex marriages.  There are no special procedures for a same-sex marriage.” 

After Massachusetts, ten more states—California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Oregon, and Washington (The District of Columbia allows same-sex marriages)—joined in the progressive movement in liberalizing the restrictions against same-sex marriages.  Though these measures helped advance gay rights substantially, 27 states have passed laws or acts to ban same-sex marriages.  Polls still reflect that a plurality of Americans are still opposed to same-sex marriage. The fact that this issue is so polarized shows how quite prevalent this battlefield of an issue is.  Keeping with the battlefield analogy, it is hard to approach this issue without addressing the multiple fronts set up from different corners of the schools of thought.  The most prominent fields of thought that hold the most weight over the legalization of same-sex marriage are the progressive community (both intellectual and in the general public), Constitutional law, and the religious community (encompassing both the liberal and fundamental extremes politically and socially).

The American progressives have performed a fantastic job of garnering attention to the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage.  In a decade, eleven states and the capital have declared gay marriage a legal status—such a radical leap from the years before.  When one contemplates this topic, one realizes that the gay rights movement, overall as a movement, has garnered faster results and perhaps more attention than either the Women’s Suffrage movement or the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s.  Part of this is due to the existence of twenty-four hour media, which also plays a role in shaping public opinion either for or against the authorization of gay marriage.  But progressive voices and organizations have done a thorough job informing the public of the discrimination that homosexual couples face.  Public opinion is inexorably turning towards legalizing gay marriage as the progressive groups cite sources such as popular media figures (Lady Gaga, Kylie Minogue, etc.) and the First Amendment in the United States Constitution.  These resources help the progressives argue their point that there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage.  They elaborate on this point by clarifying that homosexuality is a natural tendency, shaped by birth and beyond the control of the individual. After all, who would choose to live a life where they must face discrimination at almost every turn?  Because homosexuality is a natural attraction and not a psychological disorder—it was considered such up until 1973 when it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), gay couples wishing to be titled under marriage with the same rights as heterosexual couples shouldn’t be discriminated against.  The recent bullying incidents that led to multiple suicides only reinforce the will of those in favor of change and equality.  Progressive ideas are steadily changing the minds of the youth in America, which brightens the future for gays to obtain equal rights across the land.  But there is still heavy opposition standing in the way of the progressive movement.

To oppose the front to legalize gay marriage is the social and political movement generated by far-right Christianity.  These social conservatives base their philosophical beliefs around the ancient texts of the Bible, the holy book of the Christian faith.  Usually existing in rural or less populated areas, fundamentalist Christians argue that, because of Biblical texts from the Old Testament, homosexuality is a sin against the word of the Christian god.  Since this is completely subjective, this argument is essentially nullified.  However, there are those who are less extreme that argue that marriage has been an institution between a man and a woman since the start of recorded history, and since it was such an old tradition, it should not be tampered with.  One could also point out that slavery was a tradition that ran from the dawn of civilization to the 19^th century, when it was legally abolished. 

The Religious right has grown louder in protest of gay rights in the last few years due to the increasing movement towards legalizing gay marriage.  The angry crowds that line the streets to protest same-sex marriage resemble the crowds that rallied to quell the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s.  Churches such as the Southern Baptists have developed toughening fundamentalist ideas over the issue of gay marriages.  This is not to say that all Baptist churches denounce homosexuality; however, many across the Southern United States have ostracized homosexual individuals and condemned the performance of a gay marriage.  The Mormon Church excommunicated two members from the church after they entered a same-sex marriage. The Mormons also vociferously campaigned to pass Proposition 8 in California back in 2008. Proposition 8 was an amendment to the Californian constitution that would “defend marriage” by outlawing same-sex marriage.  This is not to say that all religious figures fall into this category; there are plenty of religious leaders who would wish to see the popular religious attitude change on the topic of same-sex marriage (like Reverend Carlton from my previous post), though the fundamentalists outnumber the progressive Christians.  Though the voices of the religious right have grown in volume, with political leaders such as Michele Bachmann rallying their voting districts against the legalization, not much can be done to stop the force from coming.

With the progressive movement gaining ground in fight to legalize same-sex marriage, it seems as though the United States might one day join its Western neighbors in legalization; however, the field still remains static and polarized today.

Different Perspectives From Religious Minds

In my post today, I have embedded two videos that hold completely different tones.  Though they both feature Christian voices on gay marriage, the messages couldn't be more different.  Both men also address the topic of same-sex marriage in detail, presenting arguments from both sides.

This video, presented by Pastor Jeff Mullen of Point of Grace Church, is essentially attacking the judicial system of Iowa for overriding the state's ban on and legalization of gay marriage and calls for a grassroots movement to replace the secularizing government.  Though this video clearly uses bias to make its point, it is the first example of a counterargument that I have found that mostly refrains from employing heightened emotional rhetoric.  However, this does not save the argument from intellectual dishonesty and a lack of rationality.  The pastor starts his introduction to the topic by claiming that the "freedoms" of Iowans are in "peril" under the current judicial system.  He attempts to reinforce this claim by citing the removal of prayers from public schools (something that actually guarantees the freedom of religion for students who are not Christian in faith) and the overturn of Proposition 8 (he presents a false allegation here: he states that a majority instead of a plurality--quite a difference--passed Prop 8 into law, bringing completely different and dishonest language to the table) before honing in on his main issue: the tolerance of same-sex marriage in Iowa.  But instead of directly confronting the acceptance of gay marriage with a credible argument backed up with reasoned points, Mullen applies tricks to help bring about an emotional response in the viewer rather than provoke actual thought.  For example, visual devices are employed in the video--black and white shots, ominous music, etc.--to manipulate a similar response from the viewer.  Mullen also dodges any direct attacks on gay marriage, only insisting that the judges who lifted the ban on same-sex marriage be removed from power.  Even though he doesn't address what makes gay marriage "wrong," he still indirectly points to it as an evil in Iowan society.

However, the next video is starkly different from Mullen's biased agenda.  View the video below and tell me what you think of Reverend Carlton Pearson's theistic view on gay marriage.  Are Carlton's arguments persuasive?

Radical Religion’s Role

The most ardent supporters of the ban on same-sex marriages usually cite their religion as a reason for denying gays the right of marriage.  An example of this would be the GOP’s party platform in Texas, which is, in my observations, a firmly fundamental state.  It read’s like so regarding same-sex marriage:

 “We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.” (sourced from Shakesville, which posted a pdf of the GOP’s party platform--the blog itself is biased in favor of the left-wing, so I would not recommend forming opinions from the author's personal content)

I find the bigotry and hostility expressed in this article shocking.  Why do these people hate gay people so fervently?  Some supporters of gay marriage may respond to this question by labeling their opponents as homophobic because of their irrational fears of gays threatening their sexual security (I do not necessarily support this as the single source of this issue).  I do agree that homophobia must play a significant part in the ban of same-sex marriage, but the opposition to the issue might rise from ignorance as well.  People who are miss-informed, not exposed to the gay community, or taught to despise gays are set to be against the position from the onset.  I believe that radical religious beliefs might give people who fit the descriptions I listed above a medium by which to channel their fears of the gay community to the open.  Fundamental religion can also instigate the beliefs itself.  For example, say a young teenager, whose mind is still in its prime stages of development and malleability, clicks on a biased website such as this, and absorbs the information presented on the web page.  Strong language with firmly established positions can easily draw the attention of an impulsive young adult, reforming their views to encompass sometimes radical or dangerous beliefs.  I myself once fit well into this category of teenagers, falling into radical social movements that I could feed my developing independent opinions and pent-up frustration to.  

            I will continue this topic in my next post. I still used resources from BalancedPolitics.org.

What is marriage? Why is banning gay marriage wrong?

            In order to post more on this blog, I think a clearer description of marriage needs to be established.  Marriage, according to Merriam-Webster, is a state of legal unification between two individuals in a consensual or contractual relationship.  This arrangement is usually formed around love and can be either religious or secular, depending on the preferences of the couple. 

            Now that we have the definition of marriage better mapped out, the question can be posed: why is banning gay marriage wrong?  In most states across the nation, same-sex marriage is banned and not recognized as a legal union.  Some states provide a process similar to marriage called a civil union, but it lacks many benefits that a marriage provides (civil unions will be discussed in greater detail later).  The reason that homosexual marriages are banned in many states is due to public opinion.  Though gays have gained a greater tolerance in the last decade, there is still much animosity and false-imagery directed at the community—seeing the backlash of New Hampshire’s recent decision to pass a law lifting their ban of gay marriage is a prime example of this (see Norma Love’s essay for Boston.com).  Political figures that oppose same-sex marriage usually tote the five topics touched on by Joe Messerli’s overview of this issue in his page on gay marriage, to reaffirm their stance (see his essay for a more elaborated understanding). The main argument bounced around the political battlefield is that same-sex marriage is a sin in the Christian faith and allowing it to exist would loosen the foundations of society.  Though in this particular post I will not dive into the complexities of interpreting the Bible, contemplate the “foundations of society,” or discuss secularization in government, which better addresses this point made by those against gay marriage; I will simply note this: marriages can be religious, but not all marriages are.  I can understand discontent among a church if two same-sex members wish to have a religious ceremony, but if a same-sex couple wishes to have a secular ceremony preformed, then it doesn’t affect the members of the church—their community remains unchanged.  So why should those who oppose gay marriages due to religious philosophies care if gays marry?  Also, do same-sex marriages really affect those individuals or groups that oppose them outside of the ideological realm?

These questions, along with any other questions posed in this entry, will be expanded by discussion in coming posts, so please stay tuned in.

Introduction

             There are few topics in contemporary American politics that are more controversial or polarized than gay rights, in particular same-sex marriage.  Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals face extreme discrimination, in not only America, but in most other parts of the world.  As the issue grows in the public’s conscience, so does the animosity directed at the gay community. 

Since being homosexual or bisexual is an innate trait, the discrimination that the community has to face is unjust.  Under many governments, gay couples face extreme social, legal, and financial discrimination; most countries ban same-sex marriage, some even ban homosexuality (mostly concentrated in the Middle East).  The United States upholds policies that insure equality in some states regarding same-sex marriage, however, there is no homogenous federal law.  Some states do not recognize gay marriages and, therefore, do not provide the financial benefits that are given to heterosexual couples.  The states governments who ban same-sex marriages and those who condemn the status justify their views generally with either a religious-based argument or skewed statistics that are taken out of context to compensate for their discriminatory stance. 

There is a strong movement to nationally declare gay marriage as a legal agreement. However, due to the political polarization that exists in current American politics, it appears that the movement can only hope for  amendments to individual state constitutions. So far, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut are the only states that allow gay marriage (Washington DC also allows the performance of same-sex marriages). New York recognizes gay marriages if held elsewhere. Besides these states listed above, no other states allow the performance of gay marriages. Special interest groups and social conservatism holds same-sex marriage from passing through state legislature, let alone national congress.  It is wrong to deny someone privileges held by others or rights because of their sexual orientation.  In this blog, I hope to not only show why there is an ethical injustice in denying gays the rights of marriage, but also change the minds of those who oppose same-sex marriage using factual data and unbiased mindset.