Comedian Ellen DeGeneres and actress Portia de Rossi have announced that they will be married, following the California Supreme Court’s overturning of a ban on gay marriage.
If you have a problem with this, I respect your right to do so. But please know—no matter how strongly you feel against the lawful union of two individuals who are not only beautiful together but clearly in deep love—please know that I have more of a problem with you than you have with them.
I’ll say it again: I have no problem with your disapproval of their life-choice. I have no problem you think it is your business what two free (and perhaps comedically genius) people do together if they are not you. I especially do not have a problem with your worry about the effect this marriage and others like it will have on your kids, “the family,” and society in general. This is America. Those are your rights. Go for it!
But I do have a problem with you because, somehow, you are comfortable with your own feeling of disgust. You do not mind if others know that you feel this way. Sometimes you even feel compelled to voice your feeling publicly or through the electoral process. I do not mind that you voice it, but that you are comfortable voicing it.
How come, after years of progress, of opening up civil liberties once and again to people of all different makes, walks, and creeds (and meanwhile everyone agrees that it has really been the right thing to do)--how come no one has a problem with those things, but now you are comfortable having a problem with gay marriage? No one today would feel comfortable with the thought of enslaving blacks or rescinding women’s suffrage. When people do feel that way (poor ignorant shmucks) even they realize that they should not voice their opinions aloud. But you have no inhibition speaking out against basic equality. Astounding!
So if I have such problem with your intolerance, how do I justify my own intolerance (of you) to myself?
Simple: I have no problem with intolerance per se. And, I have no problem with your intolerance, per se. I think it is perfectly upstanding and correct to be intolerant of some things: infanticide, anti-Semitism, rape, and terrorism—and you might have your own intolerance list. I get it; we all have our own intolerance lists, and nothing I say or do will or even should change yours.
But if “equality” is on your intolerance list and you feel fine with that, get the hell out of my century. Because though I am fine with your opinions and even your list, I am not fine with you being comfortable with those things. Hold yourself to some kind of modern standard! Don’t be so easy on yourself.
Because in a democracy, tyranny is built upon the comfort of those who witness inequality.
[Reuters, NYTimes]
Jeff Dubbin is a member-at-large of TheSequitur.com editorial board.
Hopefully one day our country will GROW UP and be able to deal with things like sexual orientation (which should really be called 'LOVE orientation', unless all of you heterosexuals base you 'marriage' on sex only).
To reduce this to a debate about 'behavior' and 'choice' and 'lifestyle' is pure ignorance. Gay people are not 'choosing' to be anything except who they (we) are.
Posted by John Bisceglia, on 06/04/2008 at 19:40
Does Heterosexual America really think that all gays and lesbians accept being treated as 'less than human' and then pay their taxes?
You simply can-NOT deny a group basic civil rights and then expect them to pay a dime.
Posted by John Bisceglia, on 05/18/2008 at 23:52
The definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not establish a sexual caste system or relegate one sex to conditions of social and economic inferiority, as was the case for blacks. It does, however, deny the recognition as lawful 'marriages' to some forms of sexual combining--including polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, and same-sex relationships. But there is nothing invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual wants or proclivities as equal. People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles (people's actions) are not. . . .
Posted by Rae, on 05/18/2008 at 23:47
What absolute crock. The 'equal protection of the laws' provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions. . . . Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.
Morning Coffee is a collection of top-fold news, oddities, observations and wisecracks, peppered with financial advice, movie reviews and more gathered by TheSequitur.com contributors and editors.
Morning Coffee 
