Desperate States Seeking Homophobia

On June 26, 2016 in the United States of America, a landmark decision was made by the Supreme Court. Gay marriage was legalized. All across the country there were people celebrating that the country they love finally was recognizing their relationship as legitimate. Even internationally, celebrities across the world were excited that the United States had joined many other countries in the acceptance of gay marriage. Countless homosexual couples were married that day, overjoyed to finally be able to be legally bound to each other.

However, not everyone was as enthused about this decision. There were many anti-gay protests and rallies held. People were infuriated. This resistance has continued and, arguably, grown in intensity over this past year. More conservative, homophobic states are working hard to retain discrimination against homosexuality despite the Supreme Court's ruling last June. In Mississippi, the governor "signed into law a bill that allows businesses to refuse service to gay couples based on religious objections" (Washington Post). He essentially gave businesses the right to shut people out based on their sexuality (see full article here). Did you think we were over the homophobic hump? Nope. Apparently not. Under the guise of respecting religious freedoms, states like Mississippi have found ways to deny basic rights. To let it appear as a political issue, they claim that it is the government infringing too much on people's daily life. However, the cruel irony in this is that they are creating even more government control by making these laws, therefore feeding into the very thing that they are complaining about. To make it seem as if these laws are defending people instead of discriminating against them, they are staged as protecting the rights of religious people. I understand that people deserve religious freedom just as much as freedom with their sexuality, but it is a different matter when those freedoms so intensely involve limiting the freedoms of someone else.

Interestingly enough, though gay marriage was an amazing and necessary step for this country, some argue that it might have made it easier for people to discriminate against gay people. The Atlantic introduces the example that "many newlywed couples may be asking their employers for spousal benefits for the first time. Depending on where they live, it may or may not be legal for that employer to respond by firing them" ("Can States Protect LGBT..."). Gay people never would have had to possibility to get these rights before so they never asked, therefore never giving people the opportunity to say no and punish them. You can read the full article here.

Though there is theoretical weight to this idea - that some of these issues would have been avoided if gay marriage had not been legalized - I am adamantly against the opinion that it should not have been legalized for that reason. The Supreme Court's decision in June was a massive step for a large group of people that have been ostracized for centuries. Yes, it may have pushed some states to create laws that would not have been created before, but these laws are but chips off the boulder of gay marriage. It is outrageous, in my opinion, yes. But backlash is to be expected with any massive, national decisions so regrets of legalizing gay marriage because of the things happening now are unnecessary. Be assured: June 26th was an epic day for the United States of America. These desperate efforts to thwart the acceptance of homosexuality will not avail.



Works Cited

"Mississippi governor signs law allowing businesses to refuse service to gay people." Berman, Mark. The Washington Post. 5 April 2016. Web. 25 April 2016.

"Can States Protect LGBT Rights Without Compromising Religious Freedom?" Green, Emma. The Atlantic. 6 January 2016. Web. 25 April 2016.