Normalized oppression

Recently the United States has been forced to confront the question of LGBT rights. One of the most prominent and visible examples of this continuing debate is the question of gay marriage. There are now 31 states that have either limited or banned gay marriage by popular vote. The two most recent instances of such bans have been in California and Maine.
It seems like the American consensus is moving towards solidifying unequal treatment toward lesbian and gay couples. Once more, our society is faced with the dilemma of either ignoring a minority group or working to create a separate but equal compromise through the legalization of civil unions.

This isn’t the first time that the United States has been faced with such a dilemma. 60 years ago, our country was forced to address very similar questions. Segregation was a legally sanctioned practice. It wasn’t until the Civil Rights Movement took legal action, such as in Brown v. Board of Education, that desegregation was legally mandated. It also took further legislation in the form of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to work to remove residual legal racial discrimination.
Now, instead of carrying on the torch of equality and understanding, our country has decided to further the means of legal oppression and discrimination against another social minority. People argue that the definition of marriage necessitates the exclusion of gays and lesbians. But, is there even a stable definition of anything, especially the social construct of marriage?
As society has progressed and developed, so has its concept and definition of marriage. Dowries, for example, are no longer part of the concept of marriage within the western tradition. Women are no longer seen as being owned by their husbands.
With the historical progression of society and changing of its mode of production, so do our concepts and definitions of relationships change. It is, therefore, open to us today to shape the definition of marriage so that it is inclusive and open, rather than based upon the exclusion of two consensual adults who just happen to be of the same sex.
Ultimately, we have to ask why it is socially acceptable to support the segregation and discrimination of one group, LGBTs, while ruling it socially unacceptable for someone to be overtly racist. Granted there are still more insidious forms of racial discrimination in our society, but overt state-sanctioned discrimination against racial groups is no longer legal. Today, it takes the form of discrimination based on sexual orientation, discrimination that has been normalized in the dominant culture, allowing for socially acceptable oppression.
Just as one might argue and be morally outraged at a racist, so should we treat homophobic persons. Everyone has the means of working to shape culture and social norms towards inclusiveness and equality.
Call out discriminatory attitudes and beliefs; identifying their irrationally and harmful consequences. Just think of Martin Luther King, Jr., who said that “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
Our parents had the Civil Rights Movement that worked to rid the state of overt discrimination; we have the opportunity to do the same through the support of the Gay Rights Movement.