Tolerance

One of the most disappointing aspects of the November 2nd election was the ruling to ban gay marriage from the Constitution in eleven states. Oregon was one of those states.

Leading up to the election, roadsides and buildings were saturated with signs promoting the union of one man and one woman as the true representation of the definition of marriage. How horrible the gay and lesbian minority must have felt to be further marginalized by viewing this not-so-subtle form of hatred plastered around their communities. Have people gone stark raving mad?

Of course, mobilizing a huge opposition to gays/lesbians right to marry was rather simple across the US. Dense networks of fundamentalist Christians banded together to stand up against the imminent threat the union of homosexuals would create. No, it was more than banding together. It was an all-out assault to strip away a fundamental human right by a massive group of individuals who could not get beyond their own insecurities and fears. Have these fine Christians forgotten the notion of "live and let live"? Who do they possibly think they are to dictate the life choices and happiness of another human being? If I ever hear the phrase "Oh, I don't have any problems with homosexuals, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry - it sets a bad example for our children", I honestly could not say what my response would be. In truth, I don't feel this type of logic is worthy of a response, based on the lack of compassion it belies.

Exit polls indicated that about 1/4 or 25% of Americans voted for their candidate based on moral values. The problem with this decision was that not all moral issues were questioned. Gay marriage and abortion were at the forefront of people's decision to back George W. Bush, while they implicitly gave their approval and consent for the slaughter of 100 000 innocent Iraqis following the invasion. This tells me the majority of Americans placed greater weight on removing fundamental human rights than promoting them. In the process of validating the destruction in Iraq, they have condemned Iraqi bystanders to a continuing horror over the next four years. On the hierarchy of voting issues, questions of policy should always super-cede questions of the candidates moral values, but if the voter is insistent on placing morals ahead of policy, at the very least, they should examine all the issues moral values encompass.

The good news is that today, Friday November 5th, the province of Saskatchewan has ruled that the refusal to grant same-sex couples a marriage license violates their charter rights under the Constitution, effectively allowing these couples to legally marry. Saskatchewan joins Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, the Yukon and Nova Scotia in allowing same-sex couples to legally marry. This is the sort of tolerance which sets us apart from our neighbours to the south. I'm not saying all of our problems of inequality have vanished, but this is a sign of a healthy society who attempts to be mutually inclusive of its minority groups. It shows we value human dignity over dated religious doctrine with no grounding in reality whatsoever. It makes me very proud to be Canadian. It's another victory in the support of basic human rights.

Comments

[Zen Masta J]

Having read the above comment, I feel compelled to submit my own rebuttal, independent of the views voiced by the webmaster.

Michael, you make reference to Sadaam's reign in Iraq, discussing the corruption in his government. Such an affront is undeniable, but let me ask you this: what was better for the Iraqi people? Dealing with the problem diplomatically, allowing everyday life to continue relatively peacefully for the average citizen (albeit impoverished), or having the United States come charging in, essentially unilaterally, starting a war under false pretenses, and instituting the rule of anarchy in the country instead?

Sadaam's absence is definitely a boon, but look at the cost that Bush's badly planned war is taking on Iraq. The cowboy mentality that the current American regime is displaying is doing nothing more than damaging the lives of innocents, and further stirring the pot of anti-American sentiment worldwide.

Furthermore, you go on to discuss the Taliban and their former control over Afghanistan. Has anyone ever asked how these people got into power in the first place? Maybe we should look into the roles that current members of Bush's government had in supplying arms to this extremist group in the first place? You are right in one thing though, the Taliban are gone now... from Kabul. It's all well and good the the United States barely maintains control of the Afghani capital, while the rest of the country is a hotbed for Taliban supporters. The Soviet Union spend years fighting this group in Afghanistan, with much less mercy and much more invested in the region... and the United States captures one city, sets up a puppet government with no real control over the country, and pats itself on the back? I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong.

Michael, you also go on to make reference to events from World War II, which, if I'm not mistaken, ended 60 years ago next year. It's very nice that you bring to light the victory that the Democratic government of the era was able to bring about, but you also neglect to mention the domestic resistance to even becoming involved in the war (up until the Pearl Harbour attacks), as well as the fact that the US worked closely with Stalin (whom you earlier infer to be a tyrant) in order to achieve their goals. Also, did I mention the fact that this happened 60 years ago next year? If you're going to trumpet the achievements of American foreign policy, at least make it somewhat current.

You fall into the latest Republican craze of trying to discredit Clinton's administration based on selective facts about his involvement in the Bosnian crisis. Yes, Clinton bombed the hell out of the Serbs, who just so happened to be practicing a genocide in the region under Slobodan Milosovic's rule (who just happens to be on trial for war crimes commited during this era). Yes, Clinton supported NATO, (a multilateral organization, where many different countries get together and decide how to deal with a problem instead of one of them running in on their own and messing everything up... that definition is for you GWB), who happened to be fighting on the same side as the KLA was against the Serbs. You speak of presenting a balanced argument, and yet, your own examples are unbalanced.

I do agree with you, Michael, when you state that the gay population in the United States has it good. This is compared to several years ago, where gays could not live as they chose and were attacked in the streets simply because of who they were. Yes, the discrimination based on sexual orientation has decreased from what it has been, but it is still alive and well. I point you to the example of the fight for racial equality in the United States, a fight which lasted from the end of the Civil War to the late 60s, and whose effects are still being felt in the United States to this day. In the 1950s, sure, African Americans had it better, for the most part, than they did when they were oppressed by slavery, but that didn't mean that they had the same rights as everyone else. I'll admit, that this example is a bit extreme, but I'm sure you can see the similarities. This just goes to show you that the seperation of Church and State has a ways to go.

As for your last point, Michael, I ask you to please post some kind of reference backing up your claims.

Whew. That was a lungful... :)

[michael]

I am a friend of Seth's. He wanted me to write you a letter. I work at a group home, taking care of kids whose parents screwed up badly enough that the government stepped in to remove them. I spent years being quite liberal, very upset with American foreign policy, and attending an extremely liberal college.

However, I find your anti-Bush attitude quite unbalanced. Independent of the intentions of the administration, are you aware of the Saddam's Baath Party? The mass graves, rape rooms, the murder of countless people close to Saddam (a la Stalin), the material support to suicide bombers in Hamas, the safe haven for terrorist plotters Abu Nidal and the 1993 WTC plotter...are you aware of these?

Are you aware of the Taliban's Theocracy? The total ban on all forms of freedom for women (education, driving, working, going out, showing any skin at all) that took place in that nation, due to an aggressive takeover of the government by a minority group...that is gone now. Where is the balance in your views?

Stalin killed millions of his own people, Mao Tse Tung did the same. The US fought against both. Japan and Germany killed millions of foreigners, due to outright racism and an unchecked desire for power. Does the US get no credit for its battles against these clear, proven, absolutely undeniably horrible and powerful entities?

Maybe you do think that the US has been a positive force in the past. Or at least a partially positive force.

Maybe you just think that the whole problem is simply the Bush Administration. However, Clinton bombed the hell out of the Serbs and supported the terroristic KLA. Was he not a monster? Why is Bush the only monster?

Clinton had one war, with no attacks from the party in question. Was this okay? Very few of the "NO WAR" "PEACE AT ALL COST" crowd got enraged about Bosnia.

The gay population is better off in this country than any other, except for maybe Canada and the Europrean countries. Did you know that Kerry held a 7 point advantage over Bush among the gay population? Not a 90 to 10 advantage. A 7 point advantage. So, maybe you should try to convince every gay person that this is such an affront, as it doesn't seem to be a consensus on their part.

By the way, I think that your homeland is allowing Canadian Muslims to try certain cases in their own courts, which use Sharia law. Even though this is a potential disaster and setback for the rights of immigrant Islamic women, it was found acceptable in (I think) Ontario, for reasons I guess, of cultural diversity. I hope that America never becomes so diverse that it accepts such things.