Same-sex couples in California can finally get married today, right at the height of wedding season! NPR ran a story on the conflict over gay rights as these marriages are taking place. And I can’t help but feel torn. I believe totally and absolutely that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. And I firmly believe that discrimination based on sexual preference is morally wrong. But I can also sympathize with private businesses and their right to refuse service to whomever they want. Forcing a business to not discriminate, thinking of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, may seem like the proper thing to do, but it doesn’t actually weed out the bigotry. That melts away with successive generations, and I would like to think that businesses who do engage in discrimination will fall “behind the times” and lose business by their bigotry. But maybe we aren’t that far along yet.
Take for example the wedding photographer who refused to do business with the lesbian couple in the story:
Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: “We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!”
Willock filed a complaint, and at the hearing she explained how she felt.
“A variety of emotions,” she said, holding back tears. “There was a shock and anger and fear. … We were planning a very happy day for us, and we’re being met with hatred. That’s how it felt.”
The couple successfully sued, and the company may go out of business. Although it was simply insensitive to give that reason for not doing the shoot, and it was stupid since they opened themselves up for a lawsuit, I don’t think that suing is the proper answer. Speak out against the bigotry, but you can’t legally force them to photograph a wedding that they don’t agree with. That just stinks.
Another lesbian couple could not hold their ceremony at a pavilion on land owned by a Methodist church. Again, I believe that they can be bigoted on their own property. In the lawsuit that ensued, the church lost their tax-exempt status on that land. Now that makes me smile as an atheist who is opposed to the fact that religious organizations do not have to pay property taxes, but this isn’t the way to do that.
I wish so deeply that you could beat it into the heads of everyone in this country that being gay is not a sin, that same-sex couples are just like any other, that bigotry is wrong. But you cannot. You cannot convince without logical, rational discourse, and even then, some will be close-minded. And I find it hard to swallow that we can flush our bigotry using the legal system. Such poisonous sentiments will find a new way to show themselves when one avenue of discrimination is closed.
Unfortunately, the property rights and free speech right of bigots must be protected like the rights of any other. These ideals were essential in the early days of our country, and we must protect them, even in such circumstances. We do that even when it’s difficult. In the marketplace of ideas, I still have hope that the junk will settle out, and only the tolerant will survive.
I’m a 7th (and final!) year
3 responses so far ↓
john ogden // August 5, 2008 at 20:33 |
I think you may want to look up the word “bigot”. Seems to me it may fit you better then the individuals you sited.
Nicole // August 5, 2008 at 22:33 |
Wow, first hate comment!
Meh, I guess the worst you can say about me is that I’m intolerant of irrational prejudice.
Anonymous // December 2, 2008 at 23:22 |
No, you throw emotionally charged words without care. If someone disagrees with you they’re bigots, irrational or hateful.
Religious conviction is a very real and powerful force in the world. You would do well to remember it was one of the most important factors in the formation of the United States.
A homosexual couple has no more right to a religious ceremony in say a Baptist Church, than an atheist would have in Moslem Mosque or Jewish Temple. Society by its very definition, and as an aggregate, has certain social mores which it reserves in institutional form. (For example a citizen can’t marry a goat, claim a pet as a dependent on his tax form, or have sex with underage minors.) The so-called legal rights being sought by homosexual activist (through the creation of homosexual marriage) are in fact newly minted extensions rights. For example, I have a foot fetish therefore I want the creation of certain rights for my sexual behavior. The human sex drive is a very mutable behavior, and has always been subject to societal intervention and control.
By contrast the institution of marriage in society has its roots in religion.
In the end, no legal rights are being denied to practicing homosexuals. Any estate or benefit issues can be solved in the manner of any other citizen (through the creation of a simple will, an a-b bypass if there is a large estate with tax large issues, and the simple naming of beneficiaries on insurance forms.)
And one last note. As a Black Man in American, I find the comparison of homosexual activist with our own civil rights struggle to be rather forced and personally offensive. Believe me when I tell you that I have known irrational hate, and through your writing, it’s clear you don’t know the meaning of it.