‘Till rights do us part

Rights? What rights?
The future is Islam

2013-05-10 gay rights-2

My point about abortion is made, but I would like to use another subject I seem to have difficulties to walk away from to illustrate the point I made about laws in my last post.

I don’t exactly know what homophobia is, but I do not think that I am suffering from that curious mental illness. I don’t fear them, I don’t hate them, I can’t even say that I disapprove. I simply don’t care. Whatever makes them happy. What I do care about, is the politics. That, I have problems with and I would finally like to explain to you why.

My first encounter with the question was at the height of the aids epidemic at the early 80s. I was a new immigrant living in a picturesque neighbourhood between Jarvis and Church where – if you lived in a particular wing of the apartment building looking out the window on a beautiful summer day you were able to observe you male neighbours buggering each other in front of the open window. They liked to be watched. My friend, who lived in such an apartment, was offended by it. I had street view, I was looking at the hookers, but I digress. The neighbourhood had a few hospices and the situation looked really scary and hopeless with no cure in sight. At that point, when the first attempts were made to legalize gay marriage, the financial interest was a lot more obviously in the focus of the discussions.
Those young gay men who just a few years before felt invincible were suddenly in dire need of the benefits.  The issue was naked.
The question in my eyes was not sexual politics, but the legal framework of support. Those lucky enough to have some sort of bequeathable benefits wanted to pass it on to their partners.

On the one hand this may seem fair, on the other, what about the rest of us?
I was wondering what would happen if my brother or my best friend would need my help in a similar way. They would be out of luck. If the gay lobby said “this is not fair, the state should not have the right to bestow privileges” or if it does it should be fully equitable, I would be standing with them, but this is not what they wanted then, not what they want now. They want privileges.
The case before the Supreme Court today is not about love and dignity, it is not about human rights or equality, it is about money.
As this headline clearly states: “Taxes central to U.S. Supreme Court gay-rights marriage case”.

“If the law is struck down, the ruling extending the exemption to gay and lesbian surviving spouses would also clear the way to more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status.”

1,100 benefits???? Isn’t that insane? It does explain, however, the drive to get it.

I do not have a problem with gay relationships; my issue is with the state sanctioned aspects of the institution of marriage.
Marriage should be a civil contract, a civil commitment; the state should have absolutely nothing to do with it.
My problem at the time was (and still is) the exclusivity. On the one hand I would say let them marry, let them be happy. But then I would say the same to the Mormons about polygamy.

My main problem with gay marriage is that it does not and will not create more equality, more fairness, more acceptance, more understanding.
It will just make the state’s power to be the arbiter of what is acceptable in personal relationships even more entrenched.

What offends me is not what homosexuals do, how they are and how they behave.
I have no moral objections, I don’t care what the bible or any other religious book says.
What offends me is the blatant misuse of the language of rights to obtain privileges.
What offends me is the entrenched and vested interest it will create.
What offends me is the political power and clout they already have as an identity based special interest group.
What offends me is the obnoxious aggression in putting their sexuality into the face of the public. I would find pride day parades  for nymphomaniacs or hookers just as unappealing as I do gay pride days parades. Call me a prude, but sexuality is still a private matter to me.

What offends me the most is that while I cannot be a state sanctioned keeper of my brother, I can get all the blessings of the state if we claim to perform unnatural sexual acts with each other.   

Let me now return for a second to my points about rights. It is important to understand what kind of rights homosexuals are asking for. The language is all about ‘human’ rights, but the target is gaining access to a set of state sponsored benefits. Gays and lesbians are tax payers as well so they could argue that they should be entitled to the benefits as well, and they would be right, but this is beside the point.
The point is simply that this case is not about individual rights but about group privileges.

Once they get the legal recognition of their unions with all the associated benefits, will they be happy? Will they stop making more demands? Will they stop the homosexualization of school curricula?
Does anybody seriously think that this will be the end of their political demands?

In the end I am still wondering how I can be my brother’s keeper.
If I married my brother, would that be considered a gay marriage or incest?
Since we cannot possibly reproduce, none of the traditional reason behind the incest taboo would apply…..
Did I just discover a new frontier?

One reply

  1. […] problem with both issues, as I pointed out in an earlier post, is that it is all about money. It is all about benefits which looking from the other side is a […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.