Let me put this into context so you can understand where I am coming from. One of the hellish realities of doing a research degree is that you often find yourself waking up at bizarre hours of the night. Usually because you have had some mid-slumber inspiration or because your mind is playing tricks on you, making you think it's later than it actually is. This was one of those mornings.
It's 5am, I walk into my little cave where I conjure up my ideas, read with my feet elevated against the wall next to my desk, with a cup of coffee in my hand and nothing but a groggy desire to get some work done, for once. I turn on my television to provide some much needed white noise only to hear the voice of one Rick Santorum. Santorum, a US Republican Party candidate for their Presidential nomination, is speaking about his views on gay marriage and homosexuality. He said that while he has no problem with homosexuality, he has a problem with homosexual "acts". This in itself catches my attention just for the sheer confusion it caused me. But In the midst of trying to understand what he meant I hopped online and decided to check out some of his thoughts and ideas to get a clearer picture of the guy. An AP interview highlighted that while Santorum doesn't have a problem with homosexuals, he thinks their behaviour is wrong and immoral; fine. According to a January 3rd article in the Christian Post, Santorum's views against homosexual 'acts' go a step further. He said that there should be "one law for everybody" regarding marriage and that if a constitutional amendment was proposed that defined, outright, marriage as a contract valid only between a man and a woman, he would support it. He would support it even if it meant that already existing marriage licences between same-sex couples would become void. Don't get me wrong, if you are for or against gay-marriage, I'm not going to tell you what your opinion should be. I have my beliefs and you have yours. I respect your views, even if I think they are stupid and reprehensible. But, surely it is immoral and downright wrong to make others suffer to uphold your opinion? By supporting a constitutional amendment proposal that would nullify already existing marriages between happily married people Santorum is admitting to something; he believes in civil segregation and legalised discrimination. The gay marriage issue and lack of equality are the 21st century's version of the Jim Crow laws that, from 1876 - 1965, left a scar on the American experience that will take a long time to disappear, if it ever does.
But Santorum is not the only Republican nominee hopeful that has spoken out agianst gay-marriage in recent times. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have both shared their views against gay marriage and so it would be unfair to make Santorum the scapegoat. In fact, during the 2008 Democratic nominee race, some hopefuls, including Barack Obama, despite his inspirational speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 where he uttered the words "he have some gay friends in the red states", aired their views on what they believe should be the 'correct formula' for a marriage.
Why would a society, that speaks out so often against crimes against humanity in other states, allow itself to fall into a trap and let itself be seen as one of the greatest aggressors against the human race? In short, why would a state even entertain a debate on an issue that on one hand promotes people's their right to equality but on the other hand allows the anti-American discourse to continue and thrive? I realise that the relationship between church and state in the US is, as Facebook would suggest, "complicated", nonetheless, in a country that prides itself on individualism and 'freedom', it seems ridiculous that a president like Barack Obama, a person that showed what great things can come from a change in the collective conscience, would even hesitate to intervene on behalf of the equality seeking citizen.
The issue of gay-marriage, in 2008, was at the core of the public discourse when, in California, Proposition 8 (a proposal to repeal the pro gay-marriage laws) was put to vote. This gathered the attention of the Hollywood bourgeois, on both sides of the debate, who rallied around the issue and brought it to the attention of the international media. 'Prop 8' sparked a debate which resonated worldwide and caused people all across the world to think and, in some cases, demand that their governments review and amend the state laws dealing with definitons of marriage and, moreover, the right to marry. It is easy to become sceptical of the Hollywood cavalry that come to the rescue of certain causes. Often because many of the celebrities that rally on behalf of an issue are generally poorly informed or lacking any strong opinion on the issue at hand. Some, undoubtedly, see it as an opportunity to be seen in the news and subsequently see it as a means to getting their next job. Luckily, this time around, the support is still strong. Just a few days ago, new statesmen of Hollywood, such as Brad Pitt and George Clooney, took part in a play called '8'. They were a part of a truly star studded cast that participated in a stage production dealing with Proposition 8 and the court case against the State of California that ensued. (Click HERE to see the video of the play). I find this act encouraging. Not only has it restored my faith in the good that celebrity culture can promote but, it also is a sign that there are some, in positions of power that believe that sometimes issues are just too important to momentarily care about and then later disregard. On a different note, while it is quite cool to see all these famous faces jam packed into a single production, the play itself is pretty damn good. It's worth checking out.
It's interesting how this gay-marriage issue has inspired so much debate, some good and some bad. Of course, there are those who say that all debate is healthy, however, when these debates end in hate crimes and violence, it is hardly apt to define it to be 'good healthy dialogue'. And this is the reality of what we, as citizens of both our states and the World, are confronted with.
I've met people who have never, themselves, experienced discrimination nor have they been surrounded by others who have. It amazes me that they are able to rationalise this debate and conclude that gay-marriage is wrong, unnatural, immoral, against 'God's will' and or disgusting. These are the same people who don't remember a lifetime without the internet or mobile phones, but they are able to speak out against something that has been, more or less, around them everyday of their lives. A question emerges; what forces have influenced the discourses of today's generation? It's not television. Shows like 'Glee' and 'Top Model', networks such as "E!" and "NBC" in the US, depict homosexual characters and portray the homosexual lifestyle as elements that don't merit question but rather, are seen as commonplace and as mainstream as any other lifestyle. It would be almost too easy to blame the church. The various Christian sects that exist across the Western World have been more than outspoken in their views on gay-marriage. Citing the Bible as a direct instruction manual from God on how people should live. I'm not going to criticise the church because I believe that every religion has as much right to it's opinion as those of us who lack religious faith. However, I do take issue with those who wish to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. If the religious propaganda machine, that has been a frightening force for centuries, impedes on my views and my rights then we have a problem.
It is this that compells me to write about my newly learned truths regarding Rick Santorum and the current Republican nomination race. While I believe that Rick Santorum can believe what he wants. If he thinks gay-marriage is bad, then that is fine with me. But he has a responsibility, as a public figure, to be definitive about whether he believes in equal rights for everyone or if there is one rule for 'us' and another rule for 'them'. If he believes that gay-marriage is immoral, then logically he would align himself with those who believe that interracial marriage is wrong too? He might even think that people who are unable to have children should not be allowed to get married as it would surely be considered futile and run at a cost to the state coffers? I don't know. But, based on the logic of his beliefs, these seem likely possibilities. So, should the Republican party grant Santorum a nomination? If they do, should the American people vote for him? Sure. If the people of the United States are happy to say to the rest of the World they they "believe in segregation and inequality" then Santorum is your man! If not, then it is time to speak up. With the economic climate as it is, it seems likely that new practices will become institutionalised to prevent such crises from happening again. Unfortunately, these changes often bring with them a number of social policy changes that will also become institutionalised and eventually cemented in the collective conscience of the societies they affect. Therefore, both the American people and the international community as a whole need to address these issues sooner rather than later. Later could simply be too late.
