Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
The last 'acceptable' prejudice
Gay rights.
There have always been laws that existed that, when viewed with hindsight, have look patently preposterous. It’s preposterous to think 62 years ago the idea that black people would have the same rights as white people would prompt a walk out at a Democratic Party Convention, that in the North about 50 years ago a Unionist could have up to six votes in a local election, depending on how much property he owned, that 40 years ago a woman working in the civil service in Ireland who got married would have to give up her job, or up until even pretty recently a victim of suicide being buried on consecrated ground was still a very touchy subject. Thank God we’re much evolved and logical and forward thinking these days. Hardly.
Because, for all our progress, there is still at least one issue on which we have been unacceptably retrograde: Gay rights. A mere 18 years ago, homosexuality was illegal in this country, and while general attitudes have warmed over the years, to discriminate against gay people is just about the only thing you can get away with in any part of the world.
For instance, you’d never suggest two black people couldn’t raise kids, or suggesting their tying the knot would threaten social fabric, or serving openly in the military being considered dangerous. And yet, replace “black” with “gay” and all of a sudden these concerns gather a head of steam.
Even putting the words “gay and “marriage” together causes certain elements to get up in arms, arguing that man/woman marriage should be defended, as if same sex marriage will open the vortex to another, evil dimension where their wedding rings will cause them to act like Gollum. Even civil unions are hard enough work to get widely ingrained in law, such is the moral menace presented by the gays.
As if that wasn’t bizarre enough, there are sometimes prejudices within prejudices. Plenty of people I know who have no problem with civil unions make that sucking-air-through-the-teeth noise on the topic of same sex adoption. Again, why is it OK to suggest that people are inherently ill-prepared to care for children without taking into account any personal characteristics? Is there some kind of hormone in the body that simultaneously causes people to be attracted to the same sex and unable to look after or love a child?
Opponents argue that the ideal environment to raise a child is with strong role models of both genders. Fair enough, but what about kids raised by, say, a mother and grandmother, or a father and uncle? And is a heterosexual couple that spends their lives training for the day they feature on Jeremy Kyle’s show preferable to a well-adjusted and loving lesbian couple?
And then there’s the military policy of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in the US. The President is currently trying to have it repealed but is facing inevitable opposition, because God forbid someone who’s willing to put themselves in danger for their country shouldn’t have to conceal who they are. Still far too many people are literally homophobic: apparently scared of gay people, or frightened of what they think they represent.
Our own government recently passed a civil union bill, one that was widely welcomed in the Dáil, Fine Gael TD, Charlie Flanagan, amongst the most vocal. That in itself is significant: his father was the most notoriously conservative TD the country has ever seen. Yes, we are making progress, with every generation more, but we could and should move faster still. In 30 years time we’ll hopefully think this all preposterous, but we shouldn’t have to wait any amount of time to treat all people equally.
