The article I read today called Gay Couples Face a Mixed Geography of Marriage by Kirk Johnson, was about the challenges same-sex couples faced in order to get married. With some states having same-sex marriages legal and others not, problems were seen in regards to the rights of same-sex couples. A gay couple in the article, Henry D. Johnston and Alex Irwin, talked about them living in a state where their marriage was not allowed, and said "How are things going to change if people aren’t there to help make them change?" They also talked about how they rejected marrying as a statement as well as "The minute we drive across the border it [the marriage if chosen to marry in another state] would become invalid and we’d be back to just being two guys who own a house together," indicating how a marriage wouldn't matter if it wasn't going to be recognized. In the article, it also talked about the issues gay/lesbian/transgender people faced in general with the phrase "To many younger people, though, what matters is down the block or in the school cafeteria, not across the border," which showed that the problems that these people faced were also in their everyday life and not just in political matters. Although some states have begun to allow same-sex marriages, there are still many (especially strongly conservative) states in the country that still deny these couples the right to marry.
With Johnson's choice of words being so depressing (such as "...where same-sex marriage remains, for now, an unlikely dream,") it was evident that the author was trying to get people to feel sympathy for these couples as well as perhaps disapproval or disagreement with the government. Although there was a slight bias with the perspectives of those who were against same-sex marriages missing, Johnson clearly showed his opinion by presenting a large amount of information about the unfairness (and probably disrespect as well) towards gay/lesbian/transgender people. The author also made this issue more relatable by adding in "The portrait, or caricature, of the American West in films like “Brokeback Mountain” has not entirely faded." Overall, it could be seen that Johnson was trying to get the readers to think about the unjust acts towards these same-sex couples. He tried to show how these couples struggled for their right to be together.
If "Romeo and Juliet" were not about two star crossed lovers consisting of a young girl and boy, but instead of a pair of star crossed gay/lesbian/transgender people, would there have been a difference? Would the tragic deaths of Juliet and Romeo remain the tragedy that they are? They should be, seeing that love has no restrictions and that all love is beautiful, but sadly, I'm not sure whether or not their deaths would have been seen in the same way. Perhaps people would have stopped reading on the prologue because of their disgust. I do not understand why it is that way, for it definitely shouldn't be, but even today, in modern time, people are being denied their right to one of the greatest gifts in life. If love were horrible, twisted, and dangerous, it would be a crime, but the love I've felt, or the love I feel right now for others, or the love that each and every one of us have embraced, it is not a crime. So why are people saying that this love that another person may feel, even through this wall of barriers, a world of disdain and challenges, words and looks of disgust, isn't right? People have no place to say that this love that has tried so hard to be treated equal, is not as important as the love people feel themselves.
Perhaps, until these couples who are truly no different than anyone else, get the respect that they deserve, they may truly be made "star crossed", not by the stars, but by the people who live around them.
Please feel free to comment.
Johnson, Kirk. "Gay Couples Face a Mixed Geography of Marriage." The New York Times 26 Feb. 2013. . 26 Feb. 2013 <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/state-laws-on-gay-marriage-lead-to-disparities.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp>
No comments:
Post a Comment