On Thursday of last week, the White House released a rather unexciting statement in response to August 4th’s court ruling which overturned California’s gay marriage ban. While the statement praised the dismissal of the "divisive and discriminatory" law, it also reiterated the fact that the president’s personal stance on gay marriage has not changed. He still opposes it for personal, religious reasons.
"Or so he claims". Now the debate in the media has become "is it a heartfelt belief or a political calculation?" While there is room to discuss his somewhat dubious stance on this issue, especially in light of his otherwise generally pro-gay rights tone in speech and governance (not to mention the fact that he was apparently for it before he was against it,) his current view on the issue is less relevant than his commitment to upholding the Constitution and the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.I don’t know why President Obama continues to openly profess his opposition to gay marriage. Don’t care, to be honest. What is relevant is this statement:
He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.
The president continues to reaffirm his commitment to overturning DADT and DOMA, and to instating equal rights (to legal benefits) for gay couples. The repeal of DOMA and the extension of benefits for couples are two components needed to pave the way for gay marriage equality in the United States. So...what gives? How can someone support the right for people to do something he doesn’t personally agree with? Is it equivocation, political fence-straddling or personal hypocrisy? Not necessarily; not if you believe in the Bill of Rights.
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Let’s take the "insincerity" argument out of the equation and assume that Obama is indeed sincere and unwavering in his opposition to gay marriage. Personal beliefs and legal obligation are not mutually exclusive. It IS possible to support the right to marriage equality without personally agreeing with alternative definitions of marriage. And thus far, that is what the president is doing.
Too often, popular opinion tends to conclude that if one doesn’t personally and philosophically support a certain idea, then he also opposes anyone else’s right to believe or support that idea. Not true. There should not, in theory, be a contradiction between respecting the law and maintaining personal freedom of opinion. It isn’t a contradiction any more than support of the First Amendment, regardless of the often controversial speech it protects, is a contradiction. Remember this sentiment: "I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ll always fight for your right to say it."
At its root, defining concept of marriage is an issue of personal expression and speech. Therefore, any law banning alternative expressions of marriage goes directly against the Bill of Rights. Now I’m not a lawyer or a law student, but it the California Supreme Court agrees with me. They’ve set a legal precedent that all courts, state and federal, should follow. The basis for upholding law should be the equal protection of citizens’ rights. States cannot ignore or nullify federal civil rights. Period.
I know some people who have a, shall we say, less than enthusiastic opinion of homosexuality and gay rights. Yet in the wake of the Prop 8 decision, the consensus among them has been, "I don’t understand it, but I’m glad that they can live their lives freely." Even the religious people I know have generally taken a ‘who am I to judge?’ stance on the issue. Should civil rights proponents expect any more from them?
While composing my thoughts on this issue, I was reminded of a song that is popular right now: Janelle Monae’s "Tightrope". Among the lyrics is this gem: "Ain’t no equivocating, I fight for what I believe."
Fighting for what you believe is difficult because without opposition and conflict, external or otherwise, there would be no reason to "fight." Recognizing and maintaining self-worth requires that you also regularly "dance up on them haters," as the song says. If you concern yourself with what other people think, then you've already tripped yourself up. So my advice to my gay and lesbian friends, and to all of us who support the continued protection and upholding of civil rights, is to put on your figurative battle gear and keep moving forward, regardless of the opposition against you. Focus on the goal of equal rights rather than the goal of acceptance and popularity.
Part of the responsibility of freedom is the ability to recognize that you will not always be loved. You will not always be praised, and in fact, you’ll very often be called wrong. Unintelligent. Mistaken. Immoral. Ugly. Lazy. Unworthy. It is painful, but it is freedom. No one can be forced to mentally, emotionally, or psychologically accept anything, and because of that, we will not always appreciate the beliefs and decisions of others. Freedom, whether personal, emotional or social, should not be based on the approval of the majority. Until the day that our Union truly is perfected, there will always be disagreements about what is "good" or "bad", right or wrong truth or myth. There will always be someone that disagrees with the idea of gay love, marriage and family. There will always be those who do not believe that people of color are just as attractive, smart, and talented as their White counterparts. There will always be intense debate about the origins and future of the Universe. There will always be men (and women) who refuse to see women as equals in the workforce. There will always be women who believe that female is the superior gender. There will always be people who look down on the disabled. There will always be emotional internal conflict regarding a woman’s right to end a pregnancy before its term is complete. There will always be argument for and against the consumption of animal meat. There will always be disagreements about art, cosmetic surgery, fashion, and the concept of beauty.
We should never promote the suppression of thought or opinion, even when those opinions disappoint, confuse, or anger us. The only thing we have to do as citizens of the USA, is to abide by the laws which grant us our protected rights.
No individual or group or movement can forcibly change hearts and minds, no matter the political or social system we live in. The only way that social change, equality and peace will come about is through proper legislation and a continued effort to foster civil and respectful debate about the issues. Not everyone will agree with you; some will never agree with you. But as long as everyone is guaranteed their legal and inalienable rights, they don’t have to.