Why I wear a white knot, parts deus and machina
Regular readers will remember that I posted a link to a heartwrenching story of a woman being denied the ability to see her spouse or children on her death bed. I recently read an opinion piece by a fellow UO CS student, which prompted me to realize that I don’t think I’ve talked about gay marriage in this space before.
First of all, for those that don’t know, a white knot is the symbol for marriage equality. I wear one (when I remember; I know I sometimes forget) because I believe that marriage should be legally equivalent whether it be between 2 members of the opposite gender, and 2 people of the same gender.
To follow my thought process, you only need to believe that church and state should be separate, in the sense that religious beliefs should not be forced on all citizens. The only cases where you should be limiting the freedom of individuals is when you are improving the freedom of others in some other way. If you don’t accept this point (and believe me, there are people who don’t), my argument makes no sense. Note that this does not require a belief that homosexuality is not sinful.
The word marriage is overloaded in our society. Simplifying Kiki’s definitions, we have on one hand, marriage as an affirmation of love and commitment, shared between two partners and their community, along with God, if He is present. On the other hand, we have a contract between two partners and the State, which grants certain legal rights and privileges. We do this kind of thing all the time in English. For example, consider the word “kind” in the previous sentence. The problem in this case, however, is that we can only make public policy about the latter of these definitions. Unless we want to nix freedom of assembly, we can’t mess with the former. The former is defined by the couple and the community (religious or otherwise), but they can’t (or, at least shouldn’t if we want to maintain freedom of religion) mess with the latter definition. People don’t think of these as separate definitions, because they both occur at the same time. It’s the same event, so it should be the same thing, right? Well, no, because they’re defined by different sets of people. So, a certain community has a certain definition of marriage, and it does not include same-sex couples. With all these same-sex couples turning up, they need to affirm what marriage is. So, we bring up a referendum about it, and vote that our definition is correct.
Despite the popular belief among people I’ve talked with, I don’t believe the majority of the voting public is anti-gay. They just have their own definition they want to maintain. Many of them recognize that we don’t want to deny same-sex couples the basic rights that married couples get. In fact, many candidates for same-sex marriages recognize that they don’t want to necessarily step on the toes of this other group’s definition. So, here’s a solution that makes everyone happy: Let’s say same-sex couples can engage in this other thing, called a “civil union.” While not a marriage, we’ll say that it grants them the same rights as a married couple would have. There! Now we’re not stepping on anyone’s precious definition, and the aforementioned heartwrenching story never happens.
Many people have expressed support for this compromise to me in the recent past. Some of them were Christians who favored the idea of a traditional marriage, and some of them were same-sex marriage candidates who just want the rights and privileges, and don’t care what other people call it. The problem I see with this plan is the same as the problem with the old, “separate but equal” argument that segregationists used to like. If you have separate black and white schools, invariably one will be better than the other. Guess what? It’s the white one. If there are separate words on the books, invariably a certain benefit or right will apply to one and not the other one. Guess which one gets the short end?
To me, a better solution would be one that highlights the fact that a celebration and affirmation with two people and a community is different from a contract between two people and the state. I’m fine with the word “civil union” in principle; it’s the fact that “traditional” couples get a different, more widely used word to define their contract. So, what the heck? Call this particular type of contract between two people and the state a “civil union.” As long as everyone gets the same thing (including the same legal word), nobody should care what word is used.
I have no particular opinions on what kinds of rights and privileges should go along with marriage. I have two friends whose opinions are compatable with my solution, and they believe that the state shouldn’t be in the business of marrying people; that is the sole domain of God and the church. That fits the bill as far as I’m concerned, and just means that the rights and privileges that same-sex couples and “traditional” couples get is the empty set. I’d be just as happy with that as with them both getting a bunch of tax breaks and other privileges.
For extra credit, replace all instances of “same-sex” with “mixed-race.” The argument still works, and if you think it’s ridiculous for people to be against mixed-race marriages in the same way they are against same-sex marriages, I have some swampland that I could offer to sell you. It’s a great buy in this market, and it’s never been touched by prejudice!
Now, that is the opinion that I hold, and a reasonably justified one at that. The fact is, I hold a lot of opinions, and I typically don’t advertise them to anyone who looks. For example, I just got finished voting for my friends Jeremy, Zach, and Heather in the ASUO primary elections. I like them and, in general, trust their judgment in matters of student politics. You won’t see me in a Vote True Blue T-shirt or changing my Facebook profile picture, though. Likewise, I voted for Barack Obama in the most recent presidential elections, but you wouldn’t know it if you just looked at me. So why do I think this, in particular, merits constant public declaration?
In all honesty, the answer is emotional. There are at least two people that I care about that would be affected by a curtailment of their rights, and I honestly get angry thinking about people wanting to deny my friends what they themselves enjoy simply because they have a different sexual orientation. “What? You’re not allowed to talk about your relationship because you’ll get fired for being gay? You have to hide who you are because of intolerant people? Do I need to go up there and beat someone up? Because I will if it’ll help.” Yeah, it honestly increases my heart rate just thinking about it. I care about these people, and if you say they are unfit to serve in the military or get married, that’s like saying I’m unfit, because I’ll tell you right now: I’m not better than them. So, I defend them fiercely if someone maligns their right to be who they are, the same or more than I would if someone directed that opinion at me directly.
So I wear a white knot because it affects me personally, really. It’s the only political issue that actually angers me that I can think of at the moment.
