Woods: The qualms of gay marriage

Editorials, columns and cartoons.

Zoë Woods

Gay marriage has become such a sensitive subject because there is so much to either defend or reject it. It has become a battle to which everyone has the desire to fight with bloody tooth and nail for his or her rights. Those rights are to either approve the act of a same-sex union, or to be against the idea entirely.

For those who decidedly repudiate it are subjected to hatefulness because of their disagreement. They are considered to be homophobes and discriminative, which only adds fuel to the fire and makes the situation a lot worse than it needs to be. With the appearance that the integration of gay marriage into everyday life across the United States will be inevitable, how people react from both sides of the spectrum is most important.

First and foremost, there are certain rights that residing in a freedom oriented country allow us, such as the opportunity to openly love who we want regardless of gender. At least, in a majority of the country, there are currently 37 states that have legalized gay marriage, leaving 13 others that deny it. Of those 13, there are seven states that have overturned the ban. This reaffirms the notion that it will be unavoidable at some point in time that same-sex marriage will be accepted in all states.

That being said, those who oppose it should do so in a proper manner. Through the use of the golden rule, both sides can be satisfied. It can be surmised that it isn’t the person who is disagreed with, but the action that person is pursuing. Within that person there is always an opportunity for change, just as there is within all of us.

Those who oppose the idea and action of gay marriage need not be violent or belligerent — the proper way is through leading a life of example. By being hateful and unkind, a change will not be enforced. It is not within anyone’s power to incite change among anyone but his or herself, the change must come from within. Even so, change may not be desired, therefore the only life you can change and control is your own. This is why learning to live with change is the least aggravated choice.

The opposition of gay marriage can be related to a situation like ethnicities. People of different colors are still human and deserve the same respect as those who choose to participate in a same-sex union. The disagreements that people have against gay marriage can be had in peaceful ways, which will allow the opportunity to live with change.

As humans of this world, no one deserves harsh treatment or discrimination and that transcends into any act, including an act of opposition. The way to a peaceful transition is to be acceptant of it. That is not to say you must be in agreement with it or change your ideals. However, confrontation won’t solve any problems that there may be.

Through the confrontation that already exists, the undeniable separation into sides has occurred, those who oppose it and those who support it, and so it is necessary to avoid hypocrisy if a solution is ever to be reached. It is paramount to reiterate the idea that we all live in a country that provides us freedoms that maybe aren’t used as they should be.

People should be allowed to be non-supporters without being called names and be discriminated upon just as those who are supporters should be allowed to continue on with their lives without discrimination. There can be hope for the future that one day we can all live peacefully whether the idea is accepted or not. It will be the time when we all can agree to disagree. I believe only then can we eliminate the hostility between gays and straights. The answer is to let go and live your life the way you think it’s meant to be lived, instead of trying to force the way you want others in the opposition to live their lives.

As Paul Tournier would say, “acceptance of one’s life has nothing to do with resignation. It does not mean running away from the struggle. On the contrary, it means accepting it as it comes, with all the handicaps of heredity, of suffering of psychological complexes and injustices.”