My brother, Allan Altman, wrote this piece, which has been submitted to the New York Times as well as to the Barack Obama Web site. I think it's brilliant, but seeing as it was written by my brother I'm not surprised that it is brilliant!
____________________________________
The press and the media have given both candidates and their running mates a free ride on the issue of same-sex marriage. I can't think of another issue which is allowed to be addressed without the requirement of any evidence of rational thought.
The dissenting judges in the recent decision to permit same-sex marriage in Connecticut were not as fortunate. They were obligated to explain their reasoning. According to The New York Times, “Justice David M. Bordon contended that there was no conclusive evidence that civil unions are inferior to marriages, and he argued that gay people have ‘unique and extraordinary’ political power that does not warrant heightened constitutional protections.” The other dissenting opinion reported in the
Times was from Justice Peter T. Zarella, who claimed that marriage laws are bound up with the issue of procreation and therefore don’t apply to gay people. Apparently forgetting that some senior citizens marry long after the possibility of procreation has passed, he wrote “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry.”
So, one Justice sees gay people as already having “unique and extraordinary” political power and another sees this as an issue of “biology.” The similarity to the Nazis' profile of Jews as both all-powerful and genetically-tainted is uncanny. But beyond that, how can any competent lawyer or judge accept either of these arguments as logically sound? It is as though rational thought is irrelevant when gay issues are raised. This may be true (and understandable, even acceptable) in everyday personal interactions, but don’t we expect a different response from people who interpret our country’s laws? Don’t we expect more from people who govern?
In terms of the presidential candidates, it is shocking that no one ever seems to ask them why they don’t believe that same-sex marriage is a natural civil right. Their objection to it is apparently so obvious to the unwashed masses that they are not required to present a cogent, rational, law-based response that takes into account the supposed separation of church and state.
Of course, I understand that openly promoting same-sex marriage might mean certain failure on November 4, just as running as an Abolitionist in early 19th-century America might have been absurd. But once the election is over and we have a new team in the White House, should it not be incumbent upon them to give us a rational explanation of why they oppose same-sex marriage? Is that asking too much? Or will we continue with Bush’s tactic of applying “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the actions of the next President?
Allan Altman
New York, NY
October 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
