Today's Young Hold the Future's Changes
By Broadside Opinion Columnist Brandon Cosby
One of the most promising aspects of any generation is that it will be wiser and more open than its predecessor. It is the idea that the young can succeed where others have failed that is the basic foundation of progress. Our generation is no different and we must soon prepare to take our place in the world.
We are tasked to make it a better one and doing so will not be simple. It will be a tremendous struggle, but it is something that must be done.
While it is painfully trite to say that "children are our future," it doesn't make it any less true. With our rise comes a radically different set of beliefs on life and values. We are more likely to hold more progressive social and religious views and be more liberal politically. Barack Obama knows this well, campaigning heavily towards the young liberal voters that compose a large section of his political base.
With our bold new clarity, however, is a responsibility to take on the issues left untouched by previous generations. The world and our country are mighty and sprawling places, replete with injustice. There are innumerable social and political problems crying for repair, but above them all remains one paramount in its importance.
No, I do not speak of climate change or of a broken foreign policy or of economic inequalities that cripple our country. I speak of something much more specific. Something that may seem slightly inconsequential compared to the rest, but still resonates with the fundamental ideas that form the core of our humanity. I speak of marriage equality and how it finally will make all Americans, no matter who they are, equal.
It is my firm belief that legalizing same-sex marriage and ensuring its inherent benefits will be the final blow against state-sanctioned discrimination. Preceding generations have always struggled to embrace radical civil rights change, from the 1960s with school desegregation to the 1980s with the Equal Rights Amendment. But, as our dawn approaches and our call to public service will begin to be heard, it is our responsibility to thunder forward where they have hesitated.
Now, while I doubt my few words here will do much to quell a decades-long debate, let me say that I know same-sex marriage is a basic tenet of civil rights. It is something that I know as surely as I do my own existence. It is not a question of choice.
One's sexuality is not a decision, and the common refrain that gays may still marry someone of the opposite sex is as incorrect as it is insulting. Neither is it an issue of religion. A couple can get married in a strictly secular ceremony in front of a Justice of the Peace, just as my father did. It is also not the start of a slippery slope. Marriage has been open to all in Massachusetts for years and the state has remained polygamy and bestiality free.
There is nothing inherently dangerous in allowing more people to marry. It does not damage the sanctity of another's marriage or shatter the entire institution. If anyone is tarnishing marriage, it is heterosexual couples with their speedy marriages, and even speedier divorces. And while I loathe labeling others with differing views as homophobic, the rhetoric of those such as ex-Sen. Rick "Man-on-Dog" Santorum seems tinged with fear.
This entire debate rests on the need of equality for all Americans on the most basic of levels, their sexuality. It encourages me to hear many people my age echoing more open sentiments, ones that seem to embrace all, regardless of color, creed or orientation.
While Oscar Wilde may have been the only gay person our grandparents had ever heard of, most people today have more than a few friends who are out and open. This progress is tremendous and just may be the final step needed in throwing back the cover of discrimination that has blanketed our country from its founding.
We step into a vast world after our time here at George Mason University. We will see so much that is wrong, things that will rattle us and cuase us despair. We must take comfort, however, in knowing that as the next generation in power, we will have the ability to change perhaps just a bit of it. We may not be able to end global hunger or create a lasting world armistice, but we can do something. We must focus on what we can affect and work towards it. And it is my sincere belief that insuring monogamous marriage for all and stamping out the final sliver of legalized discrimination in our country is something that is within our grasp to change, but only if we are willing.
Well written but...
Given that Cosby and I are both Opinion Columnists for the Broadside, I feel as a matter of principle to spare him a direct rebuttal in the paper. However, I would like to clarify some claims he has made in the printed word.
We are more likely to hold more progressive views and be more liberal politically. Barack Obama knows this well, campaigning heavily towards the young liberal voters that compose a large section of his political base.
This is half true, for Obama does have an appeal amongst the youth of America. However, Obama has not portrayed himself as a liberal in his campaign but rather a centrist, often mentioning Republicans and conservatives who support him. Iowa, a state whose primaries have made winners out of conservative evangelicals like Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson, also saw fit to give Obama an impressive victory.
…legalizing same-sex marriage and ensuring its inherent benefits will be the final blow against state-sanctioned discrimination.
Well, assuming lifestyle is a cause for human rights, this would not be the last bulwark of discrimination: the USA’s long history of cracking down on polygamy would be the end of discrimination by the state. Indeed, groups like the ACLU see the victories for homosexuality as hope for polygamists, as they have supported their endeavors as well. As ACLU lawyer Stephen Clark put it, “Talking to Utah's polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives, and not live in fear because of whom they love. So certainly that kind of privacy expectation is something the ACLU is committed to protecting.”
Come to think of it, lifting the ban on all alternative relationships would be the key to ending state-sponsored discrimination. Using the reasoning provided, we should remove our laws that discriminate against couples practicing incest, bestiality, and statutory rape. The state discriminates against those lifestyles as well.
Preceding generations have always struggled to embrace radical civil rights change, from the 1960s with school desegregation to the 1980s with the Equal Rights Amendment.
Unsurprisingly, the author has attempted to forge a connection between the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and the modern day Gay Rights Movement. Beyond all other complaints over this comparability, Colin Powell the first black Secretary of State puts it best: “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”
I know same-sex marriage is a basic tenet of civil rights.
The author may know this, but the experts don’t. There is no constitutional guarantee to marry. Laws permitting to interracial marriage still retain the concept of one-man-one-woman matrimony and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified a half century ago and still seen as fundamental to human rights struggles across the world, defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
One’s sexuality is not a decision, and the common refrain that gays may still marry someone of the opposite sex is as incorrect as it is insulting.
Not a decision? As typical of gay rights advocates, the author most certainly believes in sexual orientation being unchangeable, something many fellow pro-gay activists and psychologists disagree with. The Kinsey Institute, for example, is by no means a conservative think tank and yet they acknowledge degrees of sexual preference over merely homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual, and they note that a majority of people will shift amongst the degrees. Let’s not also forget several major and less known studies that have shown sexual preference to be alterable, including Spitzer, Diamond, Rodgerson, and others over time.
And no, it’s not incorrect to state that gays can marry someone from an opposite sex. None of the laws on the books either before the 1960s or the new ones that have been voted in single out homosexuals as individuals who are not allowed to get married. Rather, as David Shapiro, editor of the Honolulu Star Bulletin says:
“There’s no civil right to marry whomever you wish. Gay and lesbian couples aren’t the only ones who can’t get marriage licenses. You can’t get a license to marry your brother or sister. You can’t get a license to marry more than one person at a time. You can’t get a license to marry a 9-year-old child or your horse."
It is also not the start of a slippery slope. Marriage has been open to all in Massachusetts for years and the state has remained polygamy and bestiality free.
Other cases in the US, who are using the gay rights movement’s successes as a platform for their legal agenda, are manifesting, including efforts to lower the age of sexual consent and yes, indeed, decriminalize polygamy. As for Massachusetts, the state has gotten disturbingly more lenient on sex offenders, in particular child molesters. Also given that the priest abuse scandals have largely centered on that state, one does see permissiveness breeding more permissiveness.
There is nothing inherently dangerous in allowing more people to marry.
Baseless argument, going under the scientifically unproven assumption that gay marriage bestows the same benefits to a society as heterosexual monogamous marriage.
And while I loathe labeling others with differing views as homophobic, the rhetoric of those such as ex-Sen. Rick ‘Man-on-Dog’ Santorum seems tinged with fear.
Well, if the author is having trouble finding non-homophobic opponents to gay marriage, maybe he should note the populations of California and Washington State: Blue liberal States who nevertheless passed bans on gay marriage via popular referendum.
This progress is tremendous and just may be the final step needed in throwing back the cover of discrimination that has blanketed our country since its founding.
Once again, another declaration that could be used to legalize polygamy or incest, both of which have also been illegal since our country’s founding. Then again, given that the notion of homosexuality being a personality type doesn’t even appear until 1894, or 100 plus years after the founding of the USA, one has to wonder if people, including those seeking abolition of slaves and the rights of women, knew they were harbingers of such immense hatred.
Unfortunately, the author for his genuine feelings of giving equality has apparently shown his bigotries with the closing sentence:
…it is my sincere belief that insuring monogamous marriage for all and stamping out the final sliver of legalized discrimination in our country is something that is within our grasp to change, but only if we are willing.
Take note everyone, that the author only favors monogamous marriage. What about people who want polygamous marriage? What about them? There are people out there who feel the last sentence of the author does not go far enough in ensuring rights for ALL AMERICANS. Already in some places polygamy is being argued by attorneys as a fundamental right, and most likely they are using the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS the author used to justify gay marriage.
I happen to oppose all corruptions of marriage, be they polygamy, child marriage, incestuous marriage, bigamy, or anything else. Without a strong moral, ethical, and scientific case to buttress this plea for human rights, the author has done what many in his political wing have done: offered arguments that could indeed be used to legalize any and all alternatives to an institution proven time and again to be the bedrock of a properly functioning society. I complement the author for his refusal to consider polygamy to be fundamental rights in spite of pathos laden arguments and support from the ACLU.
Hopefully, the author will eventually see gay marriage as no better.