Once I Loved a Table

The love affair with my table was a whirlwind.  I mean, after all, who could resist its finely sanded finish, its enchanting, swirling grain, its delicate decorative accents? If only that Human-Table Marriage Act had passed, maybe I would have put a ring on it. I miss that table.

Why did our romance fizzle? What did I do wrong? Why can’t I have my table back?

Why don’t we ask the resident expert on human-inanimate-object-relations, Rebecca Kleefisch, the Republican candidate for Wisconsin lieutenant governor?

Kleefisch, oddly enough, seems possessed by the notion that extending marriage rights to gay couples will naturally lead to the marriage of people to furniture, animals, and assorted knickknacks. In her case, she seemed particularly taken with a table and a “you know, clock.” (Back up off my table, Kleefisch)

Ah, the slippery slope argument. Sorry Kleefisch, I almost forgot about that one, looks like you’ve kept up on your reading. Be sure to highlight the chapter about inane and absurd arguments, okay Becky?

Kleefisch’s statement is just one example of a debate that has been reduced to little more than bombastic, divisive and often-bigoted mud slinging on both sides. The debate about gay marriage in the United States is currently gripping the nation, providing one of the most telling glimpses into the insidious intolerance and ignorance that still lurk in every corner of our nation.

It’s hard to believe that, a little over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court was hearing arguments about the legality of Anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia. Hopefully, a little over 40 years from now, the citizens of America will look back on the current struggle facing LGBT individuals with the same outrage and disgust.

For now, however, the debate continues.

What then, is the best course of action for those who seek reform?

Social attitudes are evolving. President Obama stated that his attitudes are evolving about gay marriage, a sentiment that I hope many Americans echo. However, they clearly have not changed enough. Conservative political groups are lobbying Iowa voters to vote against the retention of the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who unanimously overturned an Iowa law banning same-sex marriages in April.

Anti-retention leaders argue that the judges had overstepped their bounds, “legislating from the bench” and, as U.S. Representative Steve King states, going “outside the limitations of the Constitution “ and deciding, “that they are going to impose special rights on people.” Call me crazy, but last time I checked, equal isn’t special.

The irony in the arguments of these Anti-retention protestors is so glaring that it’s almost comical. The people of Iowa, in 1998, passed a law that defied the basic tenets of the Constitution. In no way are the justices of the Iowa Supreme Court overstepping their bounds.

Rather, they are doing exactly what their job demands of them, exactly what the judicial oath they took demands of them – protecting the Constitution, even against the whims of the majority.

In this case, what was once the majority opinion in 1998 does not seem to be the majority opinion in Iowa today, or at least, it’s much less disproportionate, anyway.

The irony is that it was the voters, through the legislative process, that abused the American political system by passing a law that fundamentally discriminated against a minority. The judges are simply protecting the Constitution from this abuse by overturning this law.

If true, enduring legal reform is to be established, however, we cannot simply rely on the courts as a means of accomplishing our goals. Rather, the LGBT community must work towards passing comprehensive legislative protections that clearly outline and mandate equal civil rights for LGBT citizens.

Obviously, these solutions will not be without their opponents. Not only will those who are against legalizing basic rights for LGBT citizens object, but also some will argue that, by arguing about these rights in a social forum, we will be undermining their inherent fundamentality.

Yet, the reasoning behind favoring legislative solutions is twofold, however. Not only will legislative reform be less vulnerable to overturn and appeal than judicial rulings, but it will also carry a weight and significance that judicial reform will not.

If a law is passed in a country or state through the legislative branch, it means that a social consensus has been reached, the people have spoken and a majority has voted for political and legal change. Thus, by passing legislative reform, the LGBT community will not only help usher in a tide of social awareness and cultural change, but will also set a concrete legal precedent that will be much less tenuous and open to criticism and overturn.

So, look forward, fellow table-lovers, and do not despair. One day, we will have our time in the sun, and society will look back at these dark times with a disapproving gaze. As for you chair-lovers, you sickos will have to wait your turn.