If I may add some here. I don't wish to play any word games here, but your use of the words 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' bear some discussion.
Tolerance is pretty clear. We tolerate that which we do not condone, but also do not actively attempt to prohibit. 'Live and let live' sums it up pretty well. Everyday we tolerate circumstances and realities we may wish to see changed, but for a variety of reasons put up with.
Acceptance is a bit tougher. It could mean that we both tolerate and agree with. Or, that we no longer view as something that is 'tolerated'; i.e. something that no longer garners our attention as an annoyance or anomaly. Or, that we both accept and promote. There are many shades of acceptance. However, they all seem to have a common thread; that when we 'accept' something, we no longer see the issue as an annoyance or anomaly.
However, I believe that the issue of acceptance is beside the point. I believe many, if not most, homosexuals would be quite content with tolerance. Tolerance would result in a situation where there are those who do not agree with a homosexual lifestyle or relationship, but still do not attempt to restrict the ability of others to engage in that lifestyle. From a point of view of the law, we have reached that stage today, with the striking down of the last archaic 'sodomy' laws.
So the question turns to the issue of gay marriage. Is allowing gay marriage merely tolerating a homosexual lifestyle, or accepting it? Again, looking at the difference between tolerating and accepting, the question is: does gay marriage require the 'acceptance' of all members of the society? A majority?
Maybe an example will help. Many in America, especially post 9/11, view Islam in a suspicious manner. On the one hand, we hear those who claim that Islam is a religion of peace, while others claim it is a morally corrupt code bent on the destruction of non-believers. However, regardless of these positions, we tolerate Islam and the Muslim followers. In fact, it is clear that the Constitution protects this tolerance, and disallows legislation of laws to restrict or prohibit its practice. Followers of Islam are protected, as their inalienable right to freedom of religion is expressly protected in the Constitution.
It is my opinion (and seemingly, that of the Supreme Court), that homosexuals are similarly protected. Homosexuality does not require that all accept or engage in a homosexual lifestyle; heterosexuals are free to choose to remain heterosexual, and continue to believe in their own code of sexual morality. Freedom to choose a sexual orientation lifestyle is a protected by the Constitution as the freedom to choose a religious lifestyle.
The argument that I always hear is one that involves the domino theory; that is, if you accept A, it will lead to B, C, D, etc. If you allow A, where do you stop? Where is the 'line'?
Clearly there are multiple lines of 'right' and 'wrong' when examining the morality of individuals and the society as a whole. Just in the area of spirituality and religion, there are many overlapping lines. What I believe is the moral line between right and wrong is quite different from that of a devout Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or an athiest. Trying to draw one line for all individuals is a futile exercise. Therefore, we must recognize the difference between the moral code of individuals and the moral code of the society.
So, what defines the moral code of the society? Well, not to make a circular argument, but it goes back to tolerance. My premise is that the moral code, or 'moral line', of society is what we will legally tolerate. That is, behavior that, although we do not agree with, we allow to occur, recognizing that to do otherwise would trample on the inalienable rights of others.
Thus, the arguments that allowing gay marriage will lead to the need to accept, for example, incest and beastiality are, IMO, nonsense. By legally tolerating homosexuality, but not incest, the moral and legal boundaries are intact. One does not inevitably lead to the other; there are no 'falling dominos' or bursting dams. The question of tolerance of homosexuality and, say, incest are completely separable issues.
I won't get into the chicken-and-egg argument of moral tolerance (which is a whole discussion in itself), but this leads me (finally) to my point. By tolerating homosexuality legally, we include that lifestyle inside the 'moral boundaries' of our society. And such, it is protected by our Constitution. And such, the 14th amendment clearly protects not only the homosexual lifestyle, but all it entails: including gay marriage. To legally accept homosexually, but preclude its participants from equal protection under the law, is clearly unconstitional.
To assert that this issue should be legislated is, in my opinion, completely off the mark. In fact, the Constitution is mainly about making sure that such issues *cannot* be legislated.
Finally, I contend one more point. The battle over homosexuality has already been decided. Once a belief (e.g. in a homosexual lifestyle) is tolerated and protected, acceptance is no longer an issue, and that belief must enjoy equal protection for all citizens.
IMO: if conservatives want to legally win this battle, they must delegalize homosexuality. That is the only Constitutionally defendable rampart in the battle. A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is almost comically unConstitutional, unless we care to revoke the 14th amendment. |
