It was cold and wet and I was about 20 minutes late for work already. I was on time for my bus, but the wheelchair accessible bus that was scheduled to stop at that stop had broken down; and so the bus station took out of retirement one of the old-school inaccessible busses to fill that void. I have been in a wheelchair all of my life and as such I have a strong upper body and I have learned to adapt to my surroundings, so climbing up three steps into a bus with my wheelchair in tow isn't difficult for me; but dealing with bus the driver's discrimination was almost impossible and ultimately unsuccessful; here is the end of the story: after explaining that I am capable of climbing on the bus, a few responses to his objections and some more pleading from me the driver shut the doors and drove away leaving me in the cold and rain. I ended up being an hour late for work. What was the driver's rationale? ANSWER: He is not insured to take me on the bus unless it was accessible; even though I am capable getting onto it without help. (The city buses have a 'bring on what you can carry' rule.) I was able to single handedly bring myself and my wheelchair, but because of the latter stipulation the rules didn't apply to me. Needless to say I was angry!
A temptation for manipulation.
To offer another story: I was preparing to have a few friends over one night. I had virtually no food in the house and I needed to eat supper before they came. So I went down the street to the nearest grocery store with my grocery basket on my knee. I filled it to the brim with cereal, cheese, yogurt, and a few other items and then made my way to the cash. It was a busy night and all the lineups to the cashes were long - except for one. I made a bee-line for it just to discover that the cash was closed; and the cashier was just finishing up with the previous customer who managed to get in before she closed it. I gave an involuntary frustrated grunt, spun around and slotted myself in the next line, which was the shortest of them all.
My frustrated grunt was heard by the young woman who closed her cash; I knew I got her attention because both herself and the woman who she was ringing through groceries for looked at me. In my heart I was hoping that my grunt was pitiful enough for the cashier to take pity on me and ring me through without having to wait in line first; and then temptation rose: to manipulate the cashier into taking me to her cash by using my disability. In sum I was tempted to play the 'poor crippled boy - card' to get a pass - a pass that no body else would have gotten, but I might have because I am disabled.
Now, I didn't use my disability, as just because I am disabled doesn't mean that I should get special treatment; I was quite capable waiting in line like everyone else.
What is the difference between these two stories? The first one discusses a genuine discrimination against me; as a member of my city I have the same rights to public transportation as anyone else; but because of my disability I was refused service, even though I had the capability to part take of it, despite my disability. Now I am grateful for being a Canadian citizen. The Canadian government is willing to offer, with a doctors note, disability for life; public institutions are required by law to incorporate ramps, elevators, and so on. In a public areas where animals are technically not permitted a service dog gets a pass, etc. And all the busses are now renovated to be accessible to persons in wheelchairs or who use walkers and the elderly, even the backups. My other story however talks about a temptation to require special treatment because of my disability. However isn't the above amendments 'special treatments'? Isn't putting in ramps and elevators, special treatment? Isn't it special treatment to overhaul all public transit just to cater to the physically disable? Isn't the blind person getting a pass on the 'No Dogs Allowed' rule in restaurants and other public institutions, special treatment? No; those are necessary amendments so to give the disabled community access to public services.
However aren't homosexuals functionally excluded from marriage on the account of them being gay, just as a wheelchair bound person is functionally excluded from a restaurant for example who is wheelchair inaccessible? No. A gay man can marry to a woman - he just doesn't want to, and visa versa for a gay woman. This is akin to my second story where I was not excluded from service, I just didn't want to obtain it in the way it was offered to me. My disability does not give me the right to demand a reorientation of the rules if the original rules are within my ability to honour. In the same way the LGBT community has no right to use their homosexual attraction to change the rules of the marriage game.
What is wrong however with tarrying down an old institution - marriage (the house) and building up an institution that is relevant for modern society - [?] (the apartment building)? Where does the renovation stop? This new institution *called* marriage is compared to an apartment building because both same-sex unions and opposite sex unions share the same real-estate; however it has no roof! How many stories will be put onto it? A union between a human and an animal? Yep.[i] How about a union between a human and an inanimate object? Yep.[ii]
So even though the Canadian government legally recognizes same-sex couples and offers them all the financial and monetary benefits that is offered to opposite-sex couples - they are not literally married, they are only legally married. The question however is: Should the same-sex union be legally supported? Why does a government even back marriage? Because people are in love? No. Because people are attracted to each other? No. Its because marriage benefits society; does same-sex unions benefit society? No. So was it wise for Canada to accept same-sex unions? No. So if legal marriage, not literal marriage is an evolving entity can heterosexual married couples consider themselves literally 'married'? Yes; this is despite that Canada has force them to move into the perpetually renovating building called legal marriage.
Having same sex attraction isn't a disabling factor when it comes to marriage it just may not be something a gay man or woman would be interested in. A gay man or woman may desire that the government legally recognizes their same-sex union; and being in a democratic society they have the right to freely speak up and demand recognition; but the government is under no obligation to comply; and even though a gay man or woman has no interest in partaking in the unity between a husband and a wife, a.k.a 'marriage' it doesn't give them the right to destroy marriage and call their union marriage.
____________________
[i] http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/man-marrys-dog-city-first-toowoomba/710538/ - accessed March 25, 2014
[ii] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5972632/Woman-getting-married-to-fairground-ride.html - accessed March 25, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment