Stomach Churning Parallels

A girl I went to high school with has recently posted on her Facebook page a long and detailed screen on gay marriage. This particular friend was a bit of a wild child in high school but had a spiritual awakening a few years ago. She has since become an incredibly devout Christian, and she seems happier in her life because of it. I'm very happy that she turned her life around so incredibly; she's gotten married to what seems like an incredible man, has a successful job, and recently discovered she is expecting her first child. I couldn't be more proud and happy for her.

However, with her spiritual and personal transformation has come some vehement and vociferous positions on political issues of the day. Last night she posted a series of status messages, which she later condensed into a note on gay marriage. Specifically, she has condemned gay marriage as something dangerous and inimical to the stability and morality of America. Normally, I would just ignore her posting and avoid the debate all together; few on either side do much to persuade the other side, and things just end up with everyone frustrated and nothing solved. Handing me scripture will do little to persuade me away from my position on equality and tolerance, and the social and medical statistics she brought up in her argument to explain why any homosexual relationship is inherently unstable and dangerous are countered by mounds of research, which she will likely discount.

So, in short, I wasn't much surprised to see her post her ideas on the issue, nor was I much surprised by the manner in which she defended her view (very respectfully and with much care to avoid bigotry as she understands it). She brings up the common arguments that so many on that side of the debate do: mother and father needed for a "stable" family, stronger childrearing in a traditional family, social order through monogamy, etc. However, I was surprised when I got to the following paragraph:

The law has already made several arguments in favor of marriage as solely between one man and one woman, generally because it recognizes that marriage is the most stable relationship for child rearing and therefore furthering the generations. Additionally, there is no legal “right” for homosexuals to marry anywhere in the Constitution, nor is it discriminatory. This is because homosexuals are not denied the right to marry, in fact, the can marry the same as anyone else in society, which is to say they can marry someone of the opposite sex. They are denied the right to marry someone of the same-sex, but this is not discriminatory, because everyone is denied this. This provision is extended to everyone in society equally. Consider a man who wishes to marry his sister. This privilege is denied to him because the law prohibits incest. But he cannot claim discrimination, because incest is prohibited for everyone. There is no special provision that discriminates against him; instead he is claiming a new right in contrast to the laws already approved by the whole society. And society is lawful in denying him his right to marry his sister.

This argument seems uneasily familiar. Let's try replacing some words to slightly alter the subject but not the object of the paragraph:

The law has already made several arguments in favor of marriage as solely between a man and woman of the same race, generally because it recognizes that marriage is the most stable relationship for child rearing and therefore furthering the generations. Additionally, there is no legal “right” for people of different races to marry anywhere in the Constitution, nor is it discriminatory. This is because individuals of different races are not denied the right to marry, in fact, the can marry the same as anyone else in society, which is to say they can marry someone of the same race. They are denied the right to marry someone of a different race, but this is not discriminatory, because everyone is denied this. This provision is extended to everyone in society equally. Consider a man who wishes to marry his sister. This privilege is denied to him because the law prohibits incest. But he cannot claim discrimination, because incest is prohibited for everyone. There is no special provision that discriminates against him; instead he is claiming a new right in contrast to the laws already approved by the whole society. And society is lawful in denying him his right to marry his sister.

I am a bit naive, because I thought this vein of thinking was mostly dying out in the younger generations. Some may still cling to a notion that separate can still be equal, but surely, we had learned the lesson of our parents. Surely this line of thought wouldn't carry over into the gay marriage debate.

But then I discovered I'm even more naive to think we had gotten through the worst of it when it even comes to race. Apparently there are almost as many people who want to outlaw interracial marriage again as those want to keep gay marriage illegal. A recent study in Mississippi shows that 46% of Republicans polled believe interracial marriage should be illegal. (The numbers for non-Republicans has yet to be released, but I worry the numbers might not be terribly different.)

I don't even know how to react to this. Disgust. Outrage. Denial. Devastation. Bewilderment. All have passed through my mind just writing this post. The other day I remarked to a friend about some backwards people having a problem with my happy and wonderful marriage, and she was bewildered as to why anyone could have a problem with me and James being married. James had to speak up and remind her that he was black and I white. My friend's reaction SHOULD be the norm. Why would anyone have a problem with anyone else being married to anyone else?

My Christian friend posted on her Facebook that it becomes her problem "because then my children will be taught in schools that marriage is between any people that love each other. And I don't value that. I don't agree." I wonder, does she a difference in these people in Mississippi explaining to their children that our president is neither black nor white but both? Does she have the same problem? The arguments share the same base, and have historically used the same arguments. They share stomach churning parallels, and it seems we've made little progress on either.

I just don't understand. I am at an utter, utter loss. I cannot comprehend the thinking that--no matter how much they protest it--is bigoted and full of ignorance that ACTIVELY resists knowledge. My god, my stomach churns.