Utah: My 2.5 Cents-Worth

First of all, I want to say that I am every bit as ecstatic as many others are about "the Utah thing." It is a wonderful, and wholly unexpected, development. It is a development that proves, if nothing else, that marriage equality IS coming and WILL come. It cannot be stopped.

But let's calm down a sec and watch what we're saying. I've been reading blog after blog since last evening and I'm seeing a whole lot of things like "Way to go, Utah!" and "Who would have thought that Utah would be this progressive?" and "I can't believe Utah jumped on the bandwagon!" and many such sentiments. Let be clear here: "Utah" did not do anything. Utah has not shown its progressive colors. Utah has not shocked the nation with its sudden change in heart. This is the doing of a single federal judge (if the information I'm reading is correct) who overturned a state constitutional amendment that prevented same-sex couples from marrying. So let's not get too effusive with our compliments to the good people of Utah, who are, I would imagine, less than pleased about this ruling. Let's hold off on our patting Utah on the back, for the time being at least. (But I would like to hug and kiss the wonderful people of Mormons for Equality and many other Utahns whose outpouring of love and support has been beautiful and touching!)

As the state's governor pointed out in a statement, this overturning goes against "the will of the people," the same will that created this amendment in the first place. The governor railed against this "activist judge" who is daring to "override" the desires of the people of Utah. 

But let's talk about that idea for a moment. Our country's governing process is (for the most part) based on a majority-rules system. This can be a great thing, as it ensures that the elected officials represent the largest number of people and their views. It means that laws protect the greatest number of citizens. But, as has been shown in Utah and many others places, it also allows the majority to bully and denigrate the minority. It was "the will of the people" to be able to purchase other humans and treat them like animals. It was "the will of the people" to create white-only restaurants, drinking fountains, park benches, and bathrooms. It was "the will of the people" to outlaw miscegenation. It's very easy for "the will of the people" to turn into utilitarianism, whose goal is simply to benefit the largest number of people, period. Utilitarianism states that if 51% of people want something, the other 49% is S.O.L. This, to me, begs the question, what should be allowed to be included in the people's collective will?

Should a group of people, no matter how large or vociferous, whose beliefs come from a book of scripture whose verses are either mistranslated or are taken completely our of context, be allowed to tell me that I cannot marry someone I love? Should they be allowed to dictate what is and is not considered "real love"? Should they be allowed to ignorantly assert that my "sexuality" is only about the physical act of having sex? Should they be allowed to ignore modern science in favor of a faith-based doctrine? A line must be drawn. This judge, as far as I'm concerned, has drawn that line. And rightly so. The people should not be allowed to will me into a dark, secluded corner. They should not be allowed to say, "I love you as a human, but just try to be exactly like me and marry a woman. And if you can't fake it, then you should embrace celibacy in expectation of greater blessings in the next life." Sorry. No, thanks. 

(And, to be frank, if all "sexual deviants" are going to Hell, then I would gladly spend eternity in the company of Tchaikovsky, de Vinci, Michelangelo, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, E.M. Forster, Cole Porter, Aaron Copland, Langston Hughes, and Neil Patrick Harris. But that's an argument for a different post.)

The train is movin', folks, and it's picking up speed. A lot of people will have to accept this reality, just like some people in the 1960's did with a different civil rights battle. So, let us rejoice in this additional move forward, but we need to see it for what it is. Let's praise the judge who recognizes that the people's will should not be used to marginalize or take away the civil rights of any minority. Let's not praise the indignant child who was just forced to take a bitter medicine that he fought and screamed not to have to take. Let's look forward to a time when that same child will realize that the medicine was not only necessary, but beneficial.