Why can't same-sex couples marry in Wisconsin, or most other states? Why were African -Americans denied the most basic civil rights into the 1960s? Why were women denied the right to vote until 1920? Why are women never ordained as Catholic priests, denied equal rights in many cultures and still paid about 70 cents to a man's dollar for doing the same job? The answer can be summed up in one word: conservatism.
What does it mean to be conservative? From freedictionary.com: Conservative: 1) ""Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change."" Yes, that's it, isn't it? Tending to oppose change. Is there something wrong with change? That depends on the change, doesn't it? Changing one's clothes regularly is good, right? Changing the start times of Badger football games to accommodate TV is less clear, and changing horses in midstream is proverbially bad. Changing our national language from English to Spanish would almost certainly be bad. Too much effort required for too little return. So, while change isn't always good, neither is it always bad. Always resisting change makes no more sense than always favoring it.
So let's examine some of the questions posed in the first paragraph. Why can't same-sex couples marry in Wisconsin? Primarily, it seems, because they've never been allowed to before, a sort of cultural inertia. Certainly there are religious objections cited. Religions tend to be conservative institutions. The good news is that we are not required to practice any particular religion, so religions are allowed to set their own rules. The state, however, is a different matter.
The state of Wisconsin, according to its constitution anyway, is committed to treating all of its citizens equally. When new situations arise, such as the desire of some of Wisconsin citizens to marry each other ""non-traditionally,"" the state cannot just fall back on the old ""this is the way we've always done it"" defense. It needs to be adaptive, to give new ideas due consideration. If a proposed change enhances the quality of life for some of its citizens and harms none of them, then what justification is there to resist the proposed change? The ""conservatives"" won't like it? Sadly, this is what has been holding back cultural progress for centuries. Try to answer any of the other questions from the first paragraph with valid answers that stand up to scrutiny. Good luck.
Kevin J. Mack is a junior majoring in history. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
