Jeez... More identity politics

Indiana Lesbian sues to wear tux to prom

The principal cited a long-standing policy in which men wear tuxedos and women wear formal dresses to the prom. The student, whose name has not been revealed, countered with court filings saying that she does not wear dresses because they express a sexual identity she does not embrace.

And let me guess, letting her wear it would be "disruptive"? I call B.S. on the part of the school board. If I had bothered to go to my prom I would have been in a tux myself, but I don't imagine that Amherst would have given me any crap about it. That and I think I look a lot better in one than in a dress.

This ironically relates to a paper I did last week for Philosophy of Race and Gender, and this is a perfect example of people trying to prescribe an identity to someone while trying to keep them out of another, and my conclusion in both this case and the paper is that they have no right to do it. Maybe it's because I've worked with enough LGBT groups, and their policies are that you are whatever sexual orientation, gender, etc. that you say you are, and that the proper response to someone telling you that you are or aren't something is a stiff shot in the face (okay, that last part's my addition, but same general principle).

A girl wearing a tux to the prom is pretty minor, but on a larger scale I don't think society has the right to tell you who you can and can't be, since it allows them to maintain their existing institutions (in this case, gender) even if they're in drastic need of an overhaul. That and it's frankly none of their business, but that's oversimplifying it.

Deconstructing the "sanctity" argument

As I’ve mentioned, I’ve been trying to figure out a way to tear down the fear mongering tactics being used by the anti-gay marriage crowd, so putting my sociologist and philosopher hats on for a second (yes, I can wear both at the same time, I'm just that badass), let’s take a look at this.

The whole “Defense of Marriage” argument operates under the principle that opening up the traditional definition of marriage somehow devalues existing marriages. This implies that the rights and benefits of being married exist in limited quantities, and that rights themselves are inherently weak if they can be compromised by opening the definition.

The fallacy comes in when you consider that the underlying assumption of this argument indirectly implies that the institution, whether it be marriage, the family, etc., is not that strong to begin with. It’s the same issue Montesquieu addressed when it came to using civil law to enforce religious norms, which states that using the law to enforce a norm basically means that the norm is not universal, and that the norm itself has an inherent weakness.

Or, to put it in another philosophical way, it says that Marriage is a not natural kind, it is constructed. When you start to think of it as being constructed it’s a lot harder to make the argument that changing it devalues it, since as a norm it’s not that substantial to begin with. By definition norms are subjective, and therefore, the opposition to changing the definition comes out of the desire to maintain a norm, and all of the “sanctity” arguments fall apart. Under the conventional definition of “sanctity” (meaning it was created by God and untainted by humans, who merely apply it) Marriage as an institution is not sanctified for several reasons.

Marriage as an institution did not exist at the beginning of time, it was created by people, and the definition has already changed several times throughout history. At least in the U.S., a wife is no longer considered property, most denominations now allow divorce, and in most of the Western world there is no longer any ownership of a person in the act of marriage. The very fact that it has changed means that Marriage is not sanctified, and if Marriage really were sanctified, we've already broken it.

Hope that makes sense. It sounded better in my head. ^_^;

The right kind of religious intervention

Vermont Clergy members declare support for same sex marriage

An excerpt of the declaration reads, “As religious people, clergy, and leaders, we commit ourselves to public action, visibility, and education to support the right and freedom of same-gender couples to participate in civil marriage. We oppose the application of sacred texts and religious traditions for the purpose of denying legal and social equity to same-gender couples.”

And a bit more from their declaration:

We recognize that a separate system that legally recognizes same-gender couples creates a harmful stigma for those we support and love in our community. Although civil union protections have remedied some of the financial and legal inequities, the denial to participate in the status of civil marriage is a social injustice that fractures our communities, harms those we love and sends a message of government sanctioned discrimination.

I don't think I need to add anything else except the mood icon.