THE ISSUE of same-sex marriage hasprompted a lot of discussion among Americans regarding the "decline of family values" it symbolizes. Conservatives have successfully put the matter onto the political agenda, and it continues to draw much attention as the presidential election approaches this fall. President George W. Bush's "Marriage Protection Week" last October is only one of many initiatives used by conservative politicians to turn American politics into a moral crusade against what is a natural evolution of social norms.
More visible interest in the debate has arisen since the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled against the state's ban on gay marriage late last year. In February, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began granting marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Thousands of Americans flocked to San Francisco to cement their relationships legally.
This didn't sit well with California State Sen. William J. Knight. Knight represents California's 17th Senate district, which lies southeast of San Francisco. He is also the key draftsman of California's Proposition 22, known as the Defense of Marriage Act. The act, approved overwhelmingly by Californians in March 2000, states that only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California.
It is no wonder that Knight wasn't present when his son David wed his boyfriend of ten years this April, only days before the California Supreme Court stopped the weddings. David Knight had written an editorial for the Los Angeles Times in 1999 urging Californians to vote against Proposition 22. Estranged from his father since he came out, the two continue to be at odds regarding the acceptability of his homosexual lifestyle. Sen. Knight's brother, also gay, died of AIDS in 1997. However, the senator insists that his views on gay marriage and the actions he has taken to push anti-gay legislation forward in the California Senate are not directed at his son.
Whether or not Knight means to target his son, there is no doubt that his attitude toward homosexuality deeply affects their relationship. Ironically, the Republican Party, along with a number of conservative Democrats, has launched an offensive against the civil liberties of gays and lesbians under the euphemistic guise of "protecting American family values."
Maybe Americans should start reevaluating their values. All too often we subject others to unfair laws for purposes of preserving society's morality. But who gets to decide where this "morality" is derived from? Do our elected officials? I didn't vote for George W. Bush, andthere are a fair number of Californians who didn't vote for William Knight's Proposition 22. Why, then, should they be subjected to it?
It is difficult to argue that a law shouldn't apply to everybody, especially in a representative democracy. But laws that are based on only one group's set of morals have no place in American politics, even if that group does constitute the majority. If the founders sought to ensure Americans life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, laws like Proposition 22 are certainly thwarting their effort. There is absolutely no logical reason to ban gays from partaking in the institution of marriage. Same-sex marriage hardly infringes on anybody else's rights, as one may be able to argue in cases like abortion.
However, we've increasingly seen President Bush turn to the Bible and the Christian definition of morality to support his statements and actions as president. Whether it be in defense of our fight against the "axis of evil" or as part of an effort to keep gays from entering into legal marriages, Bush and other politicians have succeeded in subtly forcing their values on all Americans. Our elected officials have confused politics with morals in a way that they shouldn't.
If Bush or Senator Knight want to discuss the breakdown in American values, perhaps they should look elsewhere. In the United States, there are a number of parents that estrange themselves from their children over disagreements regarding religion, race, sexuality and numerous other factors. Is this not a lapse in morality? For Knight to cut himself off from his son and refuse to support him simply because of his individual choices seems a bit juvenile. These choices have relatively little bearing on anybody else's life other than those who make them. What harm could come out of Sen. Knight supporting his son's decision to marry? Perhaps he and his son would have a better relationship and they would both be happier.
So what's the bottom line? We live in a pluralistic society. As we've been indoctrinated over and over again, as long as our rights don't infringe on somebody else's, we should be free to exercise them. Exactly who are our leaders protecting, and from what? Those that are so hell-bent on denying civil liberties to homosexuals should take a second look at their mandate, the good faith of their constituents, and realize that their initiatives to protect American values are destructive to America's social fabric.
Todd Rosenbaum's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at trosenbaum@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 2 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 2 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 3 days agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
