The Legacy of Anti-Gay Discrimination

The Legacy of Anti-Gay Discrimination

“The Legacy of Antigay Discrimination” is the first chapter of the book “Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate Over Gay Equality” by (Chauncey, 2005). It highlights some of the happenings of the early, mid, and later end of the twentieth century concerning exclusion of gay people from the American society. He outlines and defines the political actions taken against the gay people in order to rule them out of the society. Even though gay marriage was denounced, popular newspapers such as The Washington Post featured an article labeled “Are Gay Activists Too Wedded To the Cause?” by (Kirchick, 2009). Major television channels have also reported successful legalization of same gender marriages, apart from the fact that the Supreme Court in Iowa uplifted the ruling that declared same sex marriages as illegal. The uprising of the gay rights activists began in the states of California and Massachusetts, and led to the publishing of amazing articles such as “What's Wrong with Gay Marriage” by (Pollit, 2009) and “Gay 'Marriage': Societal Suicide” by (Colson, n.d.). Amazingly, both the authors have adopted similar expressing strategies: similar style, credibility, tone, persuasion, and support through details (“The Legacy of Antigay Discrimination” is the first chapter of the book “Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate Over Gay Equality” by (Chauncey, 2005).

Both the articles begin by stating the issue upfront, followed by development of perspective based on empirical evidence and statistics. The referred stats lead to findings apart from supporting the writers' claims. Pollitt states the problem in the initial part of her essay published in The Bedford Reader. She has made use of scientific methods to pose the question to her audience that the legalization of gay and lesbian marriages does not threaten the institution of marriage. She criticizes conservative socialists like Elshtain and Bankhenhorn who were against the idea of gay marriages. She clarifies her stance by stating that she does not assume marriage to be for the purpose of recreating, or a channel used by women to lead men into domestic chores. She further states that

“marriage does not require child-bearing. As many people have pointed out, marriage is permissible by law to elder people, to infertile people, to impotent people, and those who just do not wish to reproduce; married couples are allowed to use birth control measures, or even to get sterilized. Reducing marriage to the sole function of reproduction is authoritative and creepy.”

(Kennedy, Dorothy, & Jane, 2009)

Details of this kind nail into the minds of the readers, the claim that Pollitt is trying to establish: marital bonds are held together by cohesive forces of stability, commitment, and love, rather than procreation. A reader that does not have prejudice in his or her mind would agree to the solution proposed by Pollitt: in order to legalize gay marriages, and improve their acceptance within the society, the Church and the State should be operating as separate, non-influential entities. Her portrayal of gay marriages was ...