Harvey Milk was killed, not specifically because he was gay, but because the fact that he was gay caused him to make certain decisions that ultimately led to his death.
He was the first openly gay office holder in California in the mid to late seventies when even those of liberal reputation and tendencies seemed not to be able to accept the prospect of gays living openly and freely.
For Harvey Milk, the constant harassment he and his friends endured at the hands of the police and politicos forced him you to seek political office and to change from within that which apparently could not be changed in any other way.
What amazes me is that to some it is still not as obvious as cold in Antarctica that all men are indeed created equal. And by men, of course, I mean people of all colors, people of all sexual orientation, people of all religious persuasions. And because they are equal they deserve equal protection and equal rights under the law.
I’m sure most of us who are not gay give little thought to the position of gays in our society. We may even think or suspect that whatever Harvey Milk endured in the seventies has since been eradicated, solved, forgotten or simply swept far enough under the rug of responsibility that some unsuspecting future generation will have to deal with it.
And except for the nasty gay marriage controversy that seems to blip the radar screen of public awareness on what seems like an annual basis, that might even be true.
Six states have recognized gay marriages; our own state of Connecticut, neighboring Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire, and Iowa.
Those states that refuse to acknowledge gay marriage generally use as their argument the obvious fact that a gay marriage will do nothing to propagate the race. This is not really the issue though, is it? These people, who may very well be gay, not by choice, but by genetic design, will do nothing to propagate the race anyway, married or not. Unless of course, in their efforts to be in a loving relationship, they find they must also live a lie, and marry not for love, but for a kind of convenience. There may indeed be offspring from that kind of union, but it might then be argued that there is then the sacrificing of one individual for another, and certainly that is not what marriage is about either.
They also argue that gays in our society are a danger to our children, especially if they are in a position to mold their young minds in our public schools. I would argue that there is no more chance, or there is just as much chance, of the proselytizing of young children by gays as there is of the same effort of heterosexuals to indoctrinate children into any of their myriad sexual tendencies. In the movie “Milk” a gay pride marcher held a banner in front of her that proclaimed, “I teach science, not sex.” Well, of course, why would anyone suspect anything different?
And those states that fail to recognize gay marriages, regardless of the argument that they use to justify their position, should recognize the morally suspect position they find themselves in, since the legality of gay marriage in any state makes suspect the moral position of all the other states.
Those states that fail to recognize gay marriages should also recognize that the gay marriage rights they fight today eventually be will universally accepted as a valid way of life.
If you are now busy scampering around for something to bludgeon me with you should take a brief tour of history.
One hundred and fifty years ago a Black person was considered less than human (only 3/5 of a person for purposes of Congressional representation).
One hundred years ago a woman was considered unqualified to vote.
Thirty years ago, if a young man was not twenty-one, he could die for his country, but could not vote for or against those who might ultimately send him to his heroic grave.
I’m sure no thinking person today would suggest that any of those aforementioned positions should still be true today.
It am also sure that it will eventually be generously said of those who today posit that gay marriages are an affront to God, a danger to children, and a blight on society, that they knew not whereof they spoke, that they were victims of the times in which they lived.
They will seem quaint, like the man, who upon learning of the invention of electricity mockingly asks, “Yes, but what good is it?”
No comments:
Post a Comment