There's nothing harder than change, even the most trivial change. Whenever I go to Starbucks in the morning and feel like eating something in addition to getting a cup of coffee, I always order the same thing: the Sausage & Cheddar Classic Breakfast Sandwich. Each time I follow the same routine: I quickly survey all the other food choices available and immediately reject every single one in favor of my beloved Sausage & Cheddar Classic. I do this even though the Sausage & Cheddar Classic doesn't taste good and is way too salty for me, offering a whopping 925 milligrams of salt. (I have a weird ear condition called Ménière's disease, and my ENT tells me that salt makes me dizzy, although I think the problem is stress, not salt.)
Anyway, I keep telling myself that some day I'm going to order something different just to prove to myself that I can -- maybe a Bountiful Blueberry Muffin or a cheese danish, but I haven't done it yet, and I doubt that I ever will. The change would just make me feel way too uncomfortable, and I'm sure I would take out my discomfort on some unfortunate friend or foe (or maybe whomever I encountered first).
Culturally, real change can seem to take forever. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia apparently thinks that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted and applied as our all-knowing founding fathers originally intended. Fortunately most people disagree with the learned judge. Otherwise, there would be no amendments to the Constitution and no Equal Protection Clause; black people would still be slaves, and women would still have no right to vote and no reproductive rights. As far as reproductive rights are concerned, men would be in great shape, because their right to impregnate has never been called into question.
A lot of Americans are pretty bad when it comes to history. There's considerable ignorance and confusion about American history, even among some of our elected officials -- like the Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann. Michele thinks that the slave-owning founding fathers "worked tirelessly" to abolish slavery and seems to be unaware that the Civil War was fought over the issue. So for the benefit of all those among us who are ignorant of our own country's history, let me provide the following chronology: The U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787 and went into effect in 1789; the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863; the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868; the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote, was ratified in 1920; the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin by federal and state governments was passed in 1964; and Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. It's been 226 years since the U.S. Constitution was adopted, and there is still no federal guarantee of marriage equality. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), all same-sex couples, even those who are legally married in their states or the District of Columbia, are denied more than 1,100 rights and benefits provided by federal laws on the basis of marital status.
The fight for freedom and equality is long and arduous. Since the founding of this country, hundreds of millions of Americans have lived and died without the ability to freely exercise all their rights as human beings. Nevertheless, some people are arguing that the movement toward marriage equality is going too quickly. They say that it would be better to go more slowly in granting same-sex couples the right to marry.
Republican pundit Peggy Noonan made this argument on ABC's This Week, stating that it would be better for the Supreme Court to leave marriage equality to the states. According to Ms. Noonan, "Sometimes it's good when everything takes a little time to settle itself out." Georgetown law professor David Cole made a similar argument in his recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Deciding Not to Decide Gay Marriage." Professor Cole says that he supports "same-sex marriage" but asks, "[I]s the country ready for a decision requiring all 50 states to recognize such unions immediately?" He argues that in 1954 the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling went too far too fast in desegregating public schools. Like Ms. Noonan, he also references Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's statement in a Columbia Law School speech that Roe v. Wade "moved too far too fast," galvanizing opposition to abortion.
Excuse me, but are we supposed to believe that Brown v. Board of Education slowed down desegregation or that Roe v. Wade has contributed in any way to denying women's reproductive rights? Did Brown enrage racists? Of course it did. Has Roe v. Wade spurred fierce opposition to women's reproductive rights, ranging from open intimidation and violence to a plethora of so-called "personhood" legislation, attempting to grant full human rights to fertilized eggs? Certainly. But where would we be today in the struggle for freedom and equality without Brown or Roe v. Wade? The answer is obvious: We would still be fighting for federal guarantees of racial equality and women's reproductive rights.
Should we put a speed limit on change? Should we go slowly in ensuring freedom and equality for all people because it will upset bigots? The answer is categorically "no"!
There is no appeasing bigotry, and nothing to be gained by trying. We all have a right to freedom and equality. That means the right to be free and independent human beings, equal protection under the law, the right to vote, an equal right to education, freedom from discrimination on any basis and full reproductive rights for women. It also means that all people have the right to marry, not just heterosexuals.
My message to Peggy Noonan, David Cole and Justice Ginsburg is this: Equality delayed is equality denied. Too many good people have been waiting too long to enjoy full freedom and equality. The time for freedom and equality is now!