Egg Foo Young, a la Parmesan
I've been mulling over a conversation I had recently with some classmates who favor a right to intrasex marriage. I thought I'd explain myself this way:
I am an American of Italian descent, the grandson of immigrants. My Italian heritage is inherent by my birth, and I had no choice in the matter. Because of this heritage, I have certain preferences, for example, cuisine. I like a dish of pasta with a good tomato sauce, prepared with certain ingredients, herbs, and spices. Notwithstanding my preferences, I may like to have a meal from a different cuisine, for example Chinese (as it has come to be prepared in America). After all, the origins of pasta trace back to the Chinese culture.
There are some benefits to having a Chinese meal: it is readily available in almost any strip mall; it is typically quickly prepared; if I tell friends or colleagues that I had Chinese for dinner, they understand the contours of the meal without further elaboration. Having decided to partake of these benefits, I enter a Chinese food establishment, and order the noddle dish of the day, with some minor modifications to suit my preferences. I would like the noodles to be served with a tomato sauce, cooked with beef and pork, garlic and onion, seasoned with salt, crushed black & red pepper, fresh basil leaf, and the finished dish dusted with freshly shredded Reggiano Parmigiano cheese.
Question: Have I eaten a Chinese meal? If I tell others I have eaten a Chinese meal, am I being accurate? At what point do changing the elements of something change the thing itself? Can I demand that everyone's definition of Chinese food include this dish? Can I sue to make a court force others to see this issue my way?
Which brings me to the question of why continue the fight over intrasex marriage? Especially when even most of the country seems prepared to accept Civil Unions as a way to bestow the utilitarian benefits of civil marriage on any couple that wants it. The answer I got to that question related to ostracization, and being treated as 'second-class' citizens. Then it's not about the civil rights, but about recognition and acceptance be the public at large.
Take this quote for Safire's NYT column today:
"The answer is that the ancient word conveys a powerful message. Civil union connotes toleration of homosexuality, with its attendant recognition of an individual's civil rights; but marriage connotes society's full approval of homosexuality, with previous moral judgment reversed."
So it's not about toleration or benefits, or even rights. It's about the warm and loving acceptance of the individual by society at large. Seeking this is a fool's errand. To most of the liberal minority groups, I am the boogey man. I am a white male of European descent. Whatever evil you can think of, it's all my fault. (Go ahead. Blame me. I'm tough. I can handle it.) I don't yet feel warmly accepted everywhere I go. For that I must be content to surround myself with a circle of friends and loved ones. Where I don't find acceptance, I move on. There are five billion people in this world who couldn't give a rat's ass about how happy I am. What's a few more or less? If I were to make my happiness dependent on any or all of them, I surrender my well-being to their benevolence. No, thank you.
Working years ago and calling a friend from work to tell him about my new girlfriend. My office mate looks over and says "I've got to pick up your slack so you can tell your buddy that you're getting some on a regular basis? Get back to work!" Most of America doesn't care who you're sleeping with, gay or straight. We don't even care who makes your medical decisions, or who gets your stuff when you die (unless it's me).
What we do care about is ordered society. Where, in America, laws are made by people we elect for that purpose, not by judges whose job is resolve disputes. He who lives by the ipse dixit, dies by the ipse dixit.
