Same-sex
marriage has become an issue, at least for the moment, in the presidential
campaign. We may never know what George Bush, John Edwards, and John Kerry
really think: The topic is so emotional that its mere mention forces a
political stance.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Attitudes will change. Years from
now, same-sex marriage will be no more controversial in the mainstream public
as interracial marriage is today.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Meantime, though, there is the
reality of the current debate. The president has called for a constitutional
amendment that would deny rights,
when the nation’s history is one of seeking to protect rights. An amendment, says the New York Times, “would inject meanspiritedness and exclusion into
the document embodying our highest principles and aspirations.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย And yet, if we believe the polls,
the majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. There, outside the
political arena, is where there is work to do.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The work will not be easy. “The
arguments given by those opposed to granting same-sex couples the right to
marry are rooted in their hearts,” writes a California lesbian
couple dear to my family.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The president, like the supporters
who pushed him into this public stand, insists that America needs a
constitutional amendment to protect marriage. But it is not the union of
same-sex couples that puts marriage under stress.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Financial problems, alcoholism and
other illnesses, long periods of separation caused by careers or military
service, a hasty marriage… husband and wife maturing and simply growing in
different directions… the physical attraction of someone other than a marriage
partner….
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Any of these can cause a marriage to
break apart. And banning same-sex marriage will not affect a one of them.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย (Maybe we should have a
constitutional amendment banning divorce. Maybe we should have a constitutional
amendment prohibiting unmarried heterosexual couples from living together.)
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The concern over the stability of
marriage is a legitimate one, to the degree that marriage does provide a
secure, stable environment for married couples and for their children. But many
marriages do not provide stability,
for anyone. Many marriages are a nightmare.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย And countless single parents,
through Herculean effort and devotion, manage to provide a stable home life and
raise happy, productive children.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย If it is stable relationships and
healthy marriages that the president seeks, there are more meaningful avenues
to pursue — providing a living wage, health care, and job security among
them.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The proposed constitutional
amendment is not about stable relationships, of course. Single-sex marriage
would promote stable relationships,
not undermine them. The proposed constitutional amendment is about
discrimination. It is about denying to gays and lesbians rights that are
afforded to heterosexuals. It is about insuring that gays and lesbians remain
second-class citizens.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The discrimination comes from a fear
and a prejudice that can not be eradicated by a constitutional amendment or the
words of a president or presidential candidate. That fear and prejudice, as my
lesbian friends in California have said,
come from the heart. It will be changed only through education and
understanding, and through personal experience, through acquaintance with
openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Americans.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย While we wait for the spread of
understanding, people whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual will
continue to suffer the effects of discrimination and hatred. Permitting
same-sex couples to marry is the least we can do.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Politicians are in a trap on this
issue. Those of us not in that trap have a duty to speak out.
An
invitation
I
hope you’ll join me next Monday night, March 8, for a program on an extremely
important subject: the growing consolidation of the nation’s media.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The program, from 7 to 9
p.m. in St. John Fisher’s Kearney Auditorium, is hosted by
Representative Louise Slaughter and Federal Communications Commissioner
Jonathan Adelstein. They’ll both be on the program, as will I, WXXI’s Norm
Silverstein, and Richard Greene, owner of WLVL independent radio in Lockport.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย An estimated two-thirds of newspaper
markets in the United States are served by
monopolies. (The Rochester-bred Gannett Corporation owns 101 daily newspapers
and 500 non-daily publications in the United
States.) A handful of giant corporations
control most of the country’s commercial radio and television stations.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The newspaper chains and the
broadcast corporations want to add to their monopolistic strength; they want
the FCC to relax the ban on owning a daily newspaper and a television station
in the same market.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย This is not just a business issue.
It is not a matter of big companies versus small, or chains versus
independents. The growing concentration of media power has resulted in less
news coverage, poorer news coverage, and less diversity of news and opinion. A
healthy democracy depends on a well-informed public, and the concentration of
the nation’s media is a major threat, to the public, and to the nation.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย “The founders of this country,” PBS
commentator Bill Moyers wrote recently, “believed a free and rambunctious press
was essential to the protection of our freedom.” Media conglomeration, said Moyers,
“can take the oxygen out of democracy.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย “You don’t have to be a populist to
want to stop this rush by ever-fewer entities to dominate both the content and
the conduit of what we see and hear and write and say,” writes New York Times columnist William Safire.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย “I say without qualification,” Bill
Moyers told a conference on media reform in November, “that it’s not simply the
cause of journalism that’s at stake today, but the cause of American liberty
itself.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Bring your own thoughts to the
program on March 8.
Surely
not!
I
wouldn’t dismiss for a minute the need to have safe, orderly schools. But I’ve
gotta say, I was astonished at the Democrat
and Chronicle’s recent recommendation.The
school district, said the D&C,
should put “armed officers” in the schools. I assume we wouldn’t arm the
officers if we didn’t think they might need to fire their weapons.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The mind boggles.
n
This article appears in Mar 3-9, 2004.
