Opinion
 

Forced equality isn't the solution

Jennifer Jackson

Three county commissioners in Benton County, Ore. are satisfied with themselves. They decided last Tuesday that the county will not issue marriage licenses to any couple in the county, homosexual or heterosexual. Thanks to the local government of San Francisco, the commissioners apparently thought this was the only way left to make a name in the gay marriage arena.

But the first problem with this "ruling" by the county commissioners is they are abusing their power, and the potentially legal heterosexual couples of Benton County, in order to further their pet agenda.

Despite what the Supreme Court of Massachusetts seems to believe, the power to make rulings, that are not based on existing laws, is not a constitutional power granted to the judiciary, and it never has been. And if state supreme courts are not constitutionally backed in their attempts to create or enforce non-existing laws, the commissioners have certainly not been given that power.

The second major problem with this act is that it does not achieve equality. "We need to treat everyone in our county equally," one commissioner said. That's an interesting way to show equality and an interesting move for the gay marriage advocates to get excited about. And they are excited about it.

A supporter from Basic Rights Oregon, a gay rights advocacy group, said, "We appreciate that they are not going to participate in discrimination."

But I'll bet you anything these same people were on the other side of the fence a few months ago, angrily decrying the recent French laws that forbid any religious clothing or symbols. Taking a freedom away from everyone in order to avoid discrimination of anyone, does not rid a society of discrimination, it simply makes every citizen a victim of discrimination. It is not a solution -- it is just a worsening of the problem.

But the last and biggest problem with the decision of these commissioners is that they will never be able to create "equality" between two inherently different and unequal ideas. The idea that a man "marrying" a man is equal to a man marrying a woman has been pounded into our brains by those who wish it to be true, but it is not. Let's look at just a few of the inherent differences.

• A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, can never produce children. Only a heterosexual union can do that. It kind of makes you wonder if maybe it wasn't designed to work that way.

• If homosexual couples decide to adopt a child, like many already have, they cannot possibly give that child as balanced a home environment as a heterosexual couple can give with the parental instruction of two genders, instead of just one. You would think this would matter more to a group of people who claim to be all about diversity.

• Homosexual unions cannot be called "marriage" because marriage has been absolutely defined as being between a man and a woman. Perhaps the hardest thing for our society to accept is an absolute definition in a world of relativism. But take, for example, the definition of a car. If a friend told you his "car" had only two wheels, one small seat, no engine and handle bars instead of a steering wheel, you would first look at him strangely, and then correctly inform him that what he possessed, was actually a bicycle.

Marriage was defined a long time ago, and, interestingly enough, by the church, not a court system. If homosexual couples want some sort of union, civil or uncivil, they cannot call it marriage. They cannot (and never will) fit the definition of marriage.

Now, before any readers angrily dash off e-mails accusing me of bigotry, let me make something clear: This is not an attack on homosexuals. Nor do I wish these arguments to be seen as merely another attempt to score points for the conservative side in the great battle about gay marriage.

My point is simply this: Forced equality will never make two inherently unequal ideas equal.

Jackson, a columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached at jenny@mail.scholars.uh.edu.