There’s a rip-roaring debate in Canada and the USA over individual rights. In this case, the issue involves the rights of individuals of legal age to marry one of their own gender.
To me, this should not be a public debate, nor an issue beyond where the same-sex couples want to take their vows, hold their reception and plan their honeymoon.
But to others, the right of two people who love each other and want to declare their undying commitment to each other through the sanctity of marriage is the gateway to hell.
I can’t say this with more clarity: What two Gay or Lesbian consenting adults want to do together is no one’s business but their own, unless it is something that would be against the law for all adults to do.
As I’ve stated in previous editorials on this subject; it wasn’t that long ago when it was against the law for Blacks and Whites to marry. And I’m not speaking about Apartheid South Africa. This was just a few decades ago in many Southern US States.
Here are a few other things that were “acceptable” amongst “polite company” only a few decades ago.
Blacks were not permitted to drink from “White” water fountains. Or allowed on “White” sections of public beaches. Or allowed to ride in the front of public busses.
It was also legal to turn away Blacks and other visible minorities from country and golf clubs, public swimming pools, hotels, motels and restaurants.
And not hiring someone because they were Black or of color was no less an “acceptable” practice than closing commercial services to “these people”.
But let’s not just focus on the mistreatment of American Blacks (and people of color) in the pre Civil Rights Days of the 1950’s and 60’s. Lets look a little closer to home.
In Canada, not that long ago, women had to fight for the right to vote, not to mention the right to hold public office. Jews in Quebec were not allowed to sit on a public school-board until the 1960’s.
Jews were not permitted to join country clubs, yacht clubs, golf clubs, and rent or buy properties in certain communities. Two of those communities that had NO JEWS ALLOWED policies written into their property deeds were the very affluent communities of Hampstead and Westmount in greater Montreal.
Even McGill University had a special quota for Jews.
I write this, because discrimination is discrimination, no matter what the purported cause. When individuals with a different bent are denied the same rights enjoyed by the majority, this is discrimination.
It was totally acceptable to deny Blacks, other visible minorities, Jews and Women equal rights under the law, because not to do so would shred the fabric of society. So was the thinking then.
And this is the same cockamamie argument being used to deny same-sex marriages today.
To deny same-sex marriage is as much a bogus and prejudicial argument based not on what is right and equitable, as it is discriminatory and gender racist.
Because one’s heritage, race, national origin, religion, gender, infirmity or age makes the majority feel “uncomfortable” is no reason to make “these people” less equal to the “offended” majority.
The government and the majority have no right whatsoever to be in the bedrooms of consenting adults. Nor should they have the right to decide whom of legal age and acceptable mental capacity of any gender-preference should be “permitted” to marry.
And the God argument doesn’t apply.
Our society is based upon the SECULAR rule of law: THANK GOD! And under that rule, all people MUST be treated equally.
It would be best for the opponents of equal rights; in this case, equal gender rights, to worry more about their own morality, than their perceived morality of others.
This is a debate that will needlessly create ill-will, and will inevitably be won by the proponents of equal rights. Anything otherwise will be far more damaging to our society than two people of the same sex saying I do.