The Locker Room Analogy

Great. I now feel obligated to publish some of my thoughts about Proposition 8. This blog is only supposed to be about my family for those who are interested in us and not a political forum. I make this exception because the issue has been on my mind so much that I want to share my thoughts on the matter.

The Locker Room Analogy:

Isn't it discriminatory that I can't use the girls' locker room because I am a man? Yes. But while that is discrimination, it’s okay because not discriminating in that way is nasty and immoral. As long as each gender has an equally adequate place to change and shower, separation of locker room rights is justifiable and correct.

Is it discriminatory if the men’s and women’s locker rooms are labeled differently? Yes. Doesn’t that promote hate between men and women? No. Shouldn’t the label be gender neutral? Of course not. Putting the same label on each locker room would be confusing and would most likely lead to significant problems. Because discriminating locker room use by gender is not wrongful, labeling the rooms according to the discriminatory distinction is justified.

Perhaps if society gets to the point where it has no qualms with a random man sharing a locker room with a random girl, then such discrimination will become unacceptable and unjustified. But society is not yet at that point (and I personally hope it will never reach it—I certainly don’t want that for my daughter).

Marriage is the same to me. Gender plays an important role and it is thus correct and justifiable to discriminate by gender. Gays can have the same benefits as married couples through civil unions. The labels do not create inequality any more than different labels on locker rooms do. Society wants marriages and civil unions to be labeled differently because it believes that not doing so can lead to confusion and more problems.

I want men and women to both have adequate locker rooms, but that doesn't mean I want to mix them.

---------------------------------------------

Argument: This is just like banning interracial marriage...

My response (without thorough research on the issue): No, for two reasons.

1) Banning interracial marriage is impractical and unworkable. For example, I am half-Caucasian and half-Filipino. My children are ¾ Caucasian and ¼ Filipino. How would you determine my race or my children’s race under the law. What about more complex mixtures? In most cases, determination of gender is not that complicated.

2) Sexual orientation is not a federally protected class while race is. Should it be? That depends. Do you think it’s wrong to discriminate because of someone’s sexual orientation? What leads you to that conclusion? If it’s your moral compass (which determines your sense of fairness and equity), then forget about it. The law does not deal with moral questions! Right?