I am sure most celebrations in New York, related to the decision of Governor Cuomo on same-sex marriage, are moved by good faith and by a genuine desire of freedom.
I am also sure that gays and lesbians have been and are objects of terrible discriminations, connected with ill frustrations and violence.
Moreover, I am sure of a third thing. The reasons why this blog has not many readers (apart from its debatable quality, of course) has a lot to do with what I would like to say on same sex marriage: it has poor marketing. On the other hand, this is a space that I could leave tomorrow, and that is just a sign of my current thoughts on some issues.
Well, I think that celebrating too much same-sex marriage could imply the risk to forget its dark side (everything has got one).
Starting from the rights of individuals, and even considering that every union is founded on the will of two people, I do not see a serious reason why equality between single persons (hetero and gays) should lead to an equal valuation of their "families" or unions. This is a world where Catholics, e.g., are asked to leave their belief in a private sphere, because every other exhibition of their values would be a form of ingerence in society. Then, I do not see why love or every kind of affection between two people should have a public, formal approval (marriage) to have the same dignity of other unions. Is really love reduced by not being disclosed to the whole world?
This leads to my second thought on same-sex marriage. I think that concentrating just on "marriage as a right" could hide a risky conception of freedom, reducing it to the "freedom to follow the herd". Is really free and source of freedom the desire to encapsulate one's feelings in an exterior, particular shape as marriage? I think that the decision of Governor Cuomo did not have any influence on the equal dignity of gays and lesbians, which is the same also in States and countries where same-sex marriage does not exist. Or do we want to say that same-sex unions which do not lead to a marriage have less value than the others? I do not think that the freedom of gays and lesbians should consist in following the same, often empty and insincere rituals between a man and a woman.
The third aspect relates more to the other side of freedom: responsibilities. Of course, there is a huge amount of supposed "normal" families which are full of violence against children and between parents. But, keeping away any reference to religion, it would be difficult to say that a "same-sex marriage" is fully open to the natural condition of becoming a parent and to the responsibilities that it implies. This is quite relevant for a society in which a lot of resources are invested in education of children.
Last but not least, I think that the same dignity of gay, lesbian and heterosexual individuals should made us look for a unique form of "freedom", which is really far from us. Even if the whole world thought that same-sex marriage is a right, how would be managed the difference between rich, gay or lesbian people on one side, and poor, gay or lesbian individuals on the other? The different possibilities of individuals have a lot to do with the material, materialistic dimension we live in, more than with the particular form of our sexuality and I do not think that someone may be a free gay or a free lesbian, until he or she is not a free human being. Well, how can we be really free when huge inequalities are in our societies, when workers are mainly "human resources", when helping the poor is just a "social activity" and when the greatest/untouchable right is the right to consume? If same-sex marriage is mainly a way to let firms sell their products to two men or two women, increasing their profits, or to let parties choose their leaders, preferring "married people" to the singles, then it's not a matter of right or wrong, of "true" marriage or something different: it risks to be just the usual, banal stuff.
While what you say is a thoughtful topic to ponder upon. The reality is that your thought is purely utopian and very very biased.
RispondiEliminaFor example -- I can use the same logic as you to rather outlaw heterosexual marriage as enshrined by the state. Why apply it only to same-sex marriage?
So where does that leave us? Back to the middle ages?
I am aware that religious people feel that they are not given due freedom to profess their beliefs; but all you are really disguising by that statement is that religious people are not allowed to FORCE their beliefs on other people.
Has the state outlawed Churches? No.
Has the state given you all right to profess your religion and love for God in your space? Yes.
So tell me where are your rights trampled?
Do you rather want to go back to war of religions, where every religion fought to establish its supremacy?
Because you are just talking about your religion, what about other religions?
This is why separation of state and religion is important.
What you mistake is that Same-sex couples are not fighting for Christians/Catholics definition of marriage to be changed -- feel free to follow what you choose, we could care less.
Rather we say that the State should not discriminate in marriage. Because a state saying marriage as between a man-woman is following the a religion's definition.
Why shouldn't I lobby the state to follow the definition of marriage as enshrined by some other religion? We get into murky waters there.
This is why -- state should remove itself from the definition. Religions are free to follow whatever they want to their heart's extent; but the state should not take away rights, privileges, tax breaks it affords to other married couples, just because the definition doesn't fit a religion.
Now mixing the rights of single people with married couples is a separate issue -- you cannot use a right not yet afforded to argue the injustification of a discrimination in place.
I support your right to profess you religion whatever way you want. Just don't enforce it on me.
I thank you for your sincere contribution to the blog, Pankaj.
RispondiEliminaOn the other hand, I deliberately avoided any reference to a religious position on the concept of marriage. I just observed that Christians - especially in Europe - are often asked to keep their faith in a purely private dimension.
Having said that, even in a secular perspective it would be difficult to say that same-sex marriage can be considered equal to "traditional marriage" - if only because otherwise there would be no need to demand equal rights for gays and lesbians. But, I repeat, to me the greatest factor that leads to deny such equality is the natural impossibility to generate children. Even in a totally non religious approach, why should the State protect a form of union which cannot generate life, and, therefore, future citizens?
Among the other things, someone could ask the possibility to marry more men, or men and women together. But where would we be taken by such lack of limits?
And, moreover, I think you can admit that most secular, non religious citizens in the world do not consider same-sex marriage a priority or something to be obtained.
As for religion, much more could be said according to it but I tried to underline other forms of argomentations.
Marco