Scrolling Headlines:

‘Stopping Genocide and Mass Atrocities by Stopping the War Profiteers’ talk at UMass -

February 19, 2017

UMass hockey falls to No. 6 UMass Lowell for third time this season -

February 18, 2017

UMass hockey breakdown in final minutes of the second period on route to 5-2 loss to UMass Lowell -

February 18, 2017

Notebook: Jack Gibbs stars as UMass men’s basketball team drops game to Davidson Saturday -

February 18, 2017

UMass men’s basketball drops another close game, falls to Davidson Saturday afternoon -

February 18, 2017

Local blogger Larry Kelley dies in car crash, remembered by community -

February 18, 2017

REPORT: UMass football to name Ed Pinkham as next defensive coordinator -

February 18, 2017

UMass students skip class to stand in solidarity with undocumented immigrants and refugees -

February 18, 2017

NPR Education Correspondent Eric Westervelt talks on future of education -

February 18, 2017

Faculty of journalism department discusses failures of journalism during Trump era -

February 16, 2017

UMass hockey prepares for third and final match-up against No. 6 UMass Lowell on Saturday -

February 16, 2017

Panelists hold discussion on embodying global coalitions -

February 16, 2017

Journalist speaks on criminalization of youth in the United States -

February 16, 2017

UMass women’s lacrosse heads to Florida in search of first win of 2017 -

February 16, 2017

UMass men’s lacrosse looks to get offense back on track against Ohio State -

February 16, 2017

Duquesne stomps UMass men’s basketball 96-66 in Pittsburgh -

February 16, 2017

UMass softball focuses on mental approach ahead of Madeira Beach Invitational -

February 16, 2017

UMass women’s basketball drops eighth straight in loss at Richmond -

February 16, 2017

‘50 Shades Darker’ steams up all windows in the nation -

February 16, 2017

’20th Century Women’ is a love letter to women across generations -

February 16, 2017

The not-quite victory on social issues

MCT

On Election Day, Americans saw significant progress on social issues in some states when voters in Maine and Maryland supported a measure to legalize gay marriage, Washington and Colorado both legalized recreational marijuana and, at home in Massachusetts, voters supported the legalization of medical marijuana.

Unfortunately many people, in their welcome celebration of these victories, were not aware that President Barack Obama, before having been re-elected, said he would not pursue gay marriage at the federal level as vigorously, saying “trying to legislate federally into this is probably the wrong way to go.”

He said that legalizing gay marriage is ultimately “the right thing to do,” but that “it is be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform.” His opposition to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) notwithstanding, he has cut off further moral support to the Americans he’s passing the buck to, but trusts that if we have that conversation at the state level, the evolution that’s taking place in this country will get us to a place where we are going to be recognizing everybody fairly.”

Deplorable as his weakness on the subject may be, it reflects a larger issue in American politics today. Essentially, it is often difficult for people who will not be directly affected by backwards social policies to consistently and courageously fight for greater social freedom. Obama’s weakness is shared by many people for whom policy consequences that are out of sight are very much out of mind.

In my own experiences, many people are surprised that as a white, straight, non-smoking, American-born male that I would so strongly support legal equality of minorities, federal legalization of gay marriage and recreational marijuana, a much more open-border policy, and respect for a woman’s right to pursue an abortion at her own expense.

I am affected by any policy that doesn’t respect the individual rights of all people – regardless of race, class, creed or sexual orientation – to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

A capitulation on the rights of any person or group of people is a step in the wrong direction, and gives moral support to all other rights-violating policies – be they of a social or economic nature. On the other hand, I am not affected by someone’s decision to marry someone of their own sex or to smoke. I preserve my ability to choose to do otherwise.

Even if it could be shown that I wouldn’t be remotely affected by the passing of some obscene act like DOMA, or the continued prohibition of marijuana, or continued bipartisan capitulation on the rights of women or continued institutionalized xenophobia, the fact would remain that all people should possess the same individual rights, regardless of my ability to relate to them.

I admittedly don’t understand or particularly want to understand a gay lifestyle. I don’t have a negative or a positive opinion of it, and I don’t know or very much care whether people choose to or are predisposed by genetics to be gay.

I haven’t the slightest desire to smoke marijuana. I highly doubt that I will need to use it for medicinal purposes, and in many cases, I think poorly of the recreational use of it.

I simply do not know what it is like to be in the position of a woman who has been raped or has encountered circumstances that would make it difficult for her to give birth to or raise a child.

In all such cases, whatever my experience or lack thereof may be in dealing with these issues, and whatever opinion I may form, the rights of homosexual couples, marijuana smokers or women enjoy the same moral status, whether or not state or federal governments, protectionists’ economic statistics, or biblically-motivated pseudoscience favor it.

The law of this country and the moral stance of our president should reflect the moral right of all humans, and especially of all Americans, to pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit.

Neither should wait for re-election or a favorable majority or state competition. A person’s right to pursue happiness, whether they conceive of happiness as spending the rest of their life with a specific person or smoking to take a break from a long week or living without potential long-term consequences of unplanned or poorly planned pregnancies, is inviolable.

It should not properly be put to a majority vote; majorities are quite capable of voting our rights away. It should not be subjected to opinion surveys; opinions do not matter in the context of rights. It should not be relegated to individual states so they can compete to discover the most efficient ways to violate it; no one should have to “vote with their feet” when they live in any part of a country founded to allow people to pursue happiness.

Individual rights should be unequivocally defended by everyone who claims the honor of being American. Conversely, a person or policy that fails to defend individual rights should be denounced as backwards, immoral and un-American.

Nathan Fatal is a Collegian contributor and can be reached at nfatal@student.umass.edu.

Comments
3 Responses to “The not-quite victory on social issues”
  1. Joey says:

    You’re not affected by someone else marrying a herum of wives. For it or against it?

    “Neither should wait for re-election or a favorable majority or state competition. A person’s right to pursue happiness, whether they conceive of happiness as spending the rest of their life with a specific person or smoking to take a break from a long week or living without potential long-term consequences of unplanned or poorly planned pregnancies, is inviolable.”

    You have a third grader’s grasp of the Declaration. Pursuit of happiness does not mean, “Whatever makes me happy, I can do it.” That’s what I used to tell my mother when I didn’t want to go to school. Some people might feel happy shooting heroin in the park. Some men might feel really happy using the women’s bathroom. That’s happening a lot lately and they call it a “civil right issue.”

    It doesn’t mean redefining marriage either. The same-sex marriage movement is not about letting people live as they wish. They can do that right now. They can marry anyone they want in a ceremony recognized by their church and family, if not by the state. The reason they want the state to recognize their marriage is so the state will force other people to recognize it too.

    And that doesn’t make those other people very happy. I know you care about people pursuing their happiness.

  2. Joey says:

    Hey, if you really care about freedom, end the government’s war on religious liberty. If you you think the government goes too far is restricting smoking, you’re right. Fight their draconian anti-smoking measures. You can’t smoke anywhere anymore. At my work, you can’t even smoke in your own car, sitting in the parking lot.

  3. David Hunt '90 says:

    Ah, so you support my individual right to own a firearm, good. Also good is your support of private property, and cutting taxes to facilitate people keeping more of the money they earn.

Leave A Comment