Adam Sieff, Staff Writer
Ideology: Liberal | Writing from: Columbia University
The struggle for equality is perpetual and without satisfaction. Its cause is righteous in our minds, but intractable in our condition.
For modern man, the criticism of inequality has been largely completed. Indeed, the criticism of inequality, to some extent, is the premise of all modern criticism.
But modern men have found in the fantastic idea of equality—where they expected to find truth—only their own reflections. They have been made to realize that man makes equality, equality does not make man. Nevertheless, equality has become the general theory of this world, its logical popular form, its general basis of political justification.
So it is without coincidence that, in states across the country, there have been—with limited effect—efforts to extend the aroma of equality into every corner of our hall of mirrors. The latest frontier in the struggle for total mythical self-realization is homosexual marriage, a noble struggle indeed. Today, beneath the banner of that idea called equality, millions of Americans demand their political emancipation. It is thought to be political because marriage, superficially, remains a political function of the state.
But what spoils await the homosexual when his political emancipation is had? When the state ceases to maintain its partial attitude towards sexuality—when man and man, and woman and woman, can join man and woman in formalizing their relations—what then is the condition of their existence?
Do not, in these very United States—where racial equality was ceremoniously “attainted” through the great struggle of the sixties—blacks and browns still suffer the glares and prejudice of their fellow “citizens.”
Or in the European states—Norway, Sweden, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Spain—where such political emancipation has already been attained, does not the germ of hatred still brood? Do not the hearts of many free Europeans still beat to the drum of discrimination and judgment? If we find in these countries, which have attained full political emancipation, that injustice not only continues to exist, but is in fact fresh and vigorous, this is proof that the existence of injustice is in no way opposed to the perfection of the state.
But since the existence of injustice is the existence of a defect, according to the invented wisdom, the source of this defect must originate in the nature of the state itself a priori. Inequality, then, no longer appears as the manifestation, but the basis of our own prejudice. For faced with an unequal, unjust and unexplainable realm of suffering, man has invented equality—a secular theodicy, an unfeasible cause.
Because while the realization of absolute equality is that for which civilized man strives, it is not possible. It is now sought politically, and then civilly, but it is nether political nor civil. Equality is a product of mind, while inequality is a product of fact, and the majesty of mind has heretofore yet to conquer the goliath Reality. This is, to us modern men, lamentable, and, indeed, even unacceptable.
But the struggle for equality is perpetual and without satisfaction. Its cause is righteous in our minds, but intractable in our condition. The tension between those who seek it, and those who reject it, is a fact of our existence insofar as we have invented its necessity.
For one day the homosexual will awake to political emancipation, suck in the moist morning dew with the elation of a small child, only to exhale solemnly with a sigh—for he has realized that it tastes no different.

Re: your writing style. You’re trying to hard, man. Honestly, loosen up the prose. I get that you’re smart. Stop trying to prove it with every piece of punctuation.
Interesting and nicely written philosophical piece. Your mention of the tension between reality and the majesty of mind brings about this thought.
Marriage is a social creation, in form dating back to the dawn of recorded history. It became recognised formally by “governments” in order to allow for clean merger and passage of property. Creating established heirs and lineage protected by the force of the state.
Te key here is that is was the state recoginsing a pre-existing social structure. Creating “legal” marriage. Illegal marriages have existed longer. What homosexuals are asking for is rights, which neither side, except for fringes, wants to deny them. The social structure of the United States does not want the word “marriage” used to describe the state recognised granting of rights to homosexual couples.
The sticky wicket is the word, not the rights, for most Americans. The homosexual community should accept the words “civil union” with the full rights of a “married couple” and leave the word “marriage” as it is. This would remove the gross percentage of resistance.
The homosexual community should also argue for the philosophical progression of their desires and strive for recognition of polygamous and incestual relationships by the state. Otherwise they become like their present opponents. At the end of day, setting themselves and their relationships above those of others just as deserving of rights recognised by the state.
I think the point was that, even with political equality, no group in America can ever feel “emancipated” in the way they feel they deserve b/c the “rights” they are striving for are really just abstractions from the reality of inter-personal relationships, which are always going to be tainted by prejudice.
I think its right. Marriage equality as a political right is clearly the logical next step from the idea of equality we have created. Taking marriage out from the state is probably even better. But, as Sief says, what spoils await the gay community once their political rights are had?
It’s sad but true.
haha sieff, going for that 19th century polemic writing style? niceee…wtf is theodicy tho brosef?
The problem with civil unions is that the word marriage exists in law. In order for civil unions for same-sex couples to be acceptable, that must be the term for opposite-sex couples as well. Make that change and then there can be equal rights under law. What the neighbors think about it is up to them.
Colin,
I’m not opposing gay marriage. I’m just saying I agree with Sief’s point that, even if there is equal marriage under law etc., that there still wouldn’t be equality just because the idea of equality is invented and inconsistent with reality. Striving for equality is fine, but we shouldn’t expect it to be the end-all-be-all because its imagined.
This frighteningly sounds like Marx in Jewish Question
Solid observation Om. See headline.
Wow, I’m an idiot…
I’ll just point it out now.
Equality is a myth. You’ll find it wherever you find pink unicorns.
There is a need for equality under the law. While that might not translate into the hearts of all citizens, the legal protections afforded under that status are DESPERATELY necessary.
Imagine your mother being told she had no say in your father’s medical care were he unable to make decisions himself. Imagine him dying and her being told that since the house was in his name, she has no claim to it, even though they’ve both made the mortgage payments. How is this any worse for them than for a gay or lesbian couple?
It happens a lot, and there is no legal recourse since marriage is currently defined as between one man and one woman in most states.
okay- so the issue for me is not only the union itself being recognized by the state and federal governments(though that is VERY important).It is also the terminology used. (I agree with Colin)
The word marriage is used to indicate a (hopefully) life-long commitment between two people. Saying that if those two people are the same gender, they have to use different terminology is just one more way to subjugate the LGBT community.
If civil unions are acceptable for same-sex couples, then that terminology should also be applied to couples of two different genders. Truth be told, I believe marriage would be better off if it were completely separate from government. Government should be in charge of civil unions for BOTH types of couples- same sex and mixed sex. Marriage should be the religious ceremony that it was intended to be and have nothing to do with government at all, but be something shared within the religious communities.
We are supposed to have a separation of church and state under the ideals of our constitution, right?
There is a need for government involvement in the issues of legal dispensation of assets and child custody should the couple divorce. Other than that I just don’t see where they should come into the picture.
Just as it is now illegal for people to be discriminated against because of their skin color, it once was the norm. There were sit-ins, marches, and protests not unlike now with the LGBT community.
I don’t think legal acceptance means everyone will automatically love us. In reality, I know differently. But that doesn’t mean I should give up the fight for equality as so much sour grapes!
& to Declan Doyle- there is a HUGE difference between homosexuality and incest. Children of incest often are born with birth defects due to not having enough variance in their genetic coding. And I’m all for poligamy as long as everyone in that relationship has the same rights and is over the age of consent. (I.E. not just a man with 3 wives, but also the possibility of a woman with 3 husbands). Life may not be fair, but doesn’t that make the legal equality even that much more important??
“Marriage equality” is to “gay marriage” as “climate change” is to “global warming.”
That is correct, O&D, I love that analogy. In both cases, the first term you use is a more complete and inclusive term whereas the latter is a narrow view of the issue which fails to take into account all factors. I’m glad you’re catching on.
Catching on? I …don’t think so.
Marriage equality is in impossibility, because two same-sex humans cannot be married. And climate change is otherwise known as…weather. Not known as a threat up until now, but something we live with.
These terms are terms of political art to try to fool fools into compliance.
Two same-sex humans cannot be married? Oh, really? Dear sir, I fear you have been debunked.
You see, in the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and (for a time only) California, there are legally recognized gay couples. That does not even begin to count the entire nations of Canada, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Norway. Of course, you’ll claim that marriage is a religious concept and I’ll point to the Unitarian Universalists, several Lutheran denominations, the Episcopal Church, several Jewish denominations, and many more religious denominations which recognize the holiness of a union between two individuals and do not spend all of their time worrying about what it looks like when the two consummate it.
Frankly, I don’t see why you are so obsessed with us having sex.
Colin: You cite authority as governmental entities(Uh oh, it’s worse than that! It’s Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and…California! Run!) Governmental entities cannot marry, the best they can do is assent to a religious combination. And those countries: moribund European welfare states! And those denominations: low hills presently occupied by the lieutenants of Satan. And neither I, nor you I think, want to contemplate very long yours “what it looks like when the two consummate it.” Everybody knows, it looks icky!
And remember the central idea, the one never to veer from: the root word of governmental is…mental!
And about your last, I try to think about it as little as possible, but it creeps in from time to time: I guess it’s these tryin’ times! They force me to cough up the cud of a mental picture from time to time. My mental picture has a caption under it which I will share with you, an “oldie but a goodie”:
The joke about the Greek boy who didn’t want to leave home, because he didn’t want to leave his little brothers behind! Brrrrump bmp!
And debunked: I detect an inapt usage. I may have been something elsed..in your opinion, but to debunk something is not what happened.
Let’s do some more green… or … how come abortion never comes up on this board? Let’s do it!
Or, how about…Islam?!