Mocking the Wisdom of Ages
By Azher Quader
Community Builders
By declaring the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional, five of the nine Supreme Court justices who voted against it, have chosen to mock the wisdom of ages.
We ask a couple of questions. Was this the only wise way to restore to the gay community in America their fullest civil and legal rights? Could the gays have had their day in court, receiving their legal rights to property and passion, without changing the definition of marriage? We believe it could have been done but the justices chose not to. That was unfortunate. But then again when it comes to mocking the logic of nature and the arguments of science, this is not the first time our Supreme Court justices have demonstrated their indifference. Some forty years ago they declared that life begins at birth not at conception defying the wisdom of science. More recently they informed us that corporations are people and that money is free speech!
In calling homosexual unions as marriage, we believe the institution of marriage is demeaned. Not the other way around as Justice Kennedy seems to claim. An enduring standard of societies, both primitive and modern, marriage throughout history, has always meant to mean heterosexual union. The biological basis of heterosexual marriage obviously sustains and guarantees the continued existence and perpetuation of the human race. By elevating homosexual union to become equal to heterosexual union and propping it up to stand equal, on the pedestal of marriage, is to not only defy the wisdom of ages but also the laws of nature. This is not an issue of love or legalese, not a matter of rights or freedoms, nor benefits or behaviors. This is simply a question of defining an institution.
Definitions are meant to mean something; they describe boundaries and explain criteria of acceptability. For marriage these boundaries go beyond the requirements of heterosexuality. Any loving relationships cannot fall within the boundaries of marriage nor can all consenting sexual relationships whether heterosexual or homosexual be deemed acceptable within the definition of marriage.
Those who argue for marriage equality under the logic of civil rights have clearly a larger agenda that targets the institution of marriage itself. Those who oppose marriage equality are not against the rights of individuals to choose the lifestyle they neither prefer nor are they opposed to the benefits they should have through equal protection under the law.
It is unfortunate that the debate on marriage equality sometimes gets distorted by those who elect to drag it into the realm of faith and religion invoking the painful rhetoric of sin and salvation for gay couples. No one should act to limit the freedoms of another. No one should be permitted to reduce the essential humanity of another. No one can sit in judgment over the choices of another. We are all accountable for the choices we make and the actions we do. None of this detracts from our responsibility to preserve and protect an institution as basic and central as marriage, so essential for the perpetuity of the human race.
As new immigrants we prefer not to speak up often on issues that are controversial in the public domain. We want to remain anonymous and peaceful not raising any eyebrows by our pronouncements and positions. We want to remain uninvolved, nonpartisan and nonpolitical, taking sides with no one. We believe it is in our best interests to be quiet than to vocalize our opinions and risk the stigma of being labeled politically incorrect.
As members of a faith community however, we have a burdensome responsibility, of speaking truth to power. This historic decision from the nation’s highest court is a powerful one and will have far reaching consequences on the morass and morality of the country. To remain silent over it will be indeed unbecoming of us.
As we celebrate another day of freedom, let us not forget that the secret of freedom is courage.
-----------------------
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
