At what point does society stop saying, “you have the right to what you believe” and instead say, “that’s racist” or “that’s homophobic?” How does that transition take place?
Currently, I am going back and forth with Zookie, someone who tuned into my blog and has made some homophobic comments on the post, America is Evolving, Are you?. He/She has claimed marriage equality is not a civil right, a right this person would evidently advocate denying to their own brother who is gay. (Their own admission that they have a gay brother.) Which I have to say, blows my mind. I’m curious what their brother has to say about their views.
Lobbying and advocating for LGBT civil rights is not making an emotional appeal. It would be the same as telling a black person during the Civil Rights Movement that they’re making an emotional appeal, that even though you don’t agree with them you’re not racist. That you have plenty of black friends.
They say that our laws don’t have to include same-sex marriage, because marriage is a social institution. However, their argument is flawed. Marriage is a legal institution because it’s regulated by the government. The government defines who can get married as well as who can perform the ceremonies. It categorizes you based on your marital status, decides your tax burden, as well as you and your partner’s rights when it comes to hospital visits, adoption, immigration, social security benefits, health insurance, etc. 
Essentially what they’re saying is that if their gay brother fell in love with someone from a different country, and this man was willing to move here, they wouldn’t be angered by the nation’s legal system that treated their brother and his partner differently under the law that it would them (because from their posts, I’m assuming they’re straight) if they were in the same situation?
It’s like the argument about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. “Why do gay people need to serve openly in the military. They can serve but just keep it to themselves. I don’t want to know about it.” But since Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was overturned, not once have I heard of an instance where our military’s readiness was compromised due to a gay person being able to be honest about who they are and afforded the same spousal benefits as other heterosexual soldiers. While I don’t serve and have never served, I work for the Navy and from what I’ve learned, all branches instill values of honor, integrity, and service. Where is asking someone to lie about who they are honorable? Thank God a soldier can’t be discharged because of who they are.
In the 1960s, two people, one white and one black were prosecuted because they wed and interracial marriage was illegal. It was considered immoral, damaging to the races (preserving the white race), and preventing this preserved the historic social institution of marriage. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, 1967, not long after the Civil Rights Act was passed, that marriage was not a segregated institution. Just under 50 years later, majority of Americans wouldn’t look twice at an interracial couple.
Already, court’s are faced with questions they cannot answer due to same-sex marriage being relegated to the states. For example, if a lesbian couple marries in Maine but then moves to Virginia where their marriage isn’t recognized, then what? Maybe they want to get divorced, but Virginia doesn’t recognize their marriage and as such cannot grant their divorce. (Which happened in Maryland before Maryland passed same-sex marriage.)
Maybe it’s a service member who’s stationed in New York and marries his partner, but because federal laws don’t recognize it, the military will not pay to move his spouse where he’s stationed. While he can serve openly, the military is bound by federal laws and as such isn’t required to offer his spouse the same benefits it would a married heterosexual couple.
Maybe I get married in Washington, D.C. and live a long, happy life with my hypothetical wife (knock on wood). If I die before they do, I want them to inherit everything I have, have access to my pension and receive social security benefits. I don’t want them to be burdened by an unjust tax burden due to the house we shared together now being passed to them (a case the U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating.)
Zookie, your argument that it’s strictly a social institution is the same as closing your eyes to the real world. Clearly, I have laid out plenty of examples and if other followers want to do the same, I welcome it. I won’t tolerate hatred or homophobic remarks on this blog, even under the guise of ‘I have a gay brother and as such can’t be homophobic.’
At what point will society on the whole consider Zookie’s comment’s homophobic? With my thumb in the air, the winds haven’t shifted. My perception is these comments are part of the idea of tolerance and the notion “we’re all entitled to our own opinion.” But my rights shouldn’t be relegated to Zookie’s or anyone else’s opinion. I expect my government to treat me the same as every other citizen and as such be equal under the law.
As I keep saying, marriage equality will be a reality, federally. The Defense of Marriage Act will be overturned and states will be required to recognize legal documents across  state borders, the same as it does drivers licenses and the marriage licenses of opposite sex couples. Service members and their families should be protected and supported under federal laws because they are willing to give up everything for our freedom and safety.
Zookie, you are on the wrong side of history. And for your brother’s sake, I hope you take time to reflect within yourself, to start advocating for him and his rights. I hope you will eventually see your brother as your equal, rather than undeserving of a legal institution, you call a strictly social institution, you are afforded. After all, it’s not a social institution if you have to go to the courthouse to get the legal document that allows you to get married. Think about it.
  http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/comments/trueconfessionsofafemalemotorcyclist.wordpress.com/1386/

Source