"Since many of you will get to participate in the decision in a few weeks whether or not to allow me the privilege to get married, I'll just leave this here. Needless to say, if you're reading this, I sincerely hope you believe I'm worthy of the same rights and privileges as the rest of the country, if for no other reason than the 14th Amendment."
My American friend wrote these words on Facebook yesterday (October 15th 2012) and they struck a serious chord with me. I've long been a supported of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (hereafter LGBT) rights but by and large it has been in a passive role. In debates or conversations I've stood up for the LGBT side but have only been active in limited ways.
That's something I want to change now. Both my friend's words and the recent news my girlfriend read in the paper that the Slovak State doesn't allow LGBT couples to inherit or have civil union rights really frustrated me. I've done a little more digging and while same sex relationships are legal and accepted by a majority (68% according to Wikipedia. I've not located the original study yet) the support for marriage and adoption rights is much lower.
In many ways Slovakia is a conservative nation and the religious background tends to be Catholic (~65% in a 2011 study). I have no intentions of disparaging that faith but it's no secret that it tends not to support LGBT couples or LGBT rights (a common theme in some religions). This is a long way from saying that Catholics hate LGBT people but there does seem to be an undercurrent of distrust or possible dislike at what a few of my students have described as 'unnatural'.
My problem at the moment is that I need to find the line between what I think is right (morally, ethically and humanistically) and what is professionally appropriate. As an English teacher I am encouraged to engage my students and provide conversation/discussion that pushes them. The problem arises in that when this kind of issue is discussed I am not just an observer/teacher. I want to step in, break down the opposing arguments through their weak points (from my perspective of course), educate and convince them that my position is a better one.
But it's not fair to do that.
I'm not debating with my peers. I'm a native speaker of English with a strong education and a relatively extensive discussion and debating background. While many of my students are as (or more!) educated than me and have comparable experience, it's still unbalanced. None of them can match me in the English language which, on a side note, ensures that I retain a job ;-), but it can allow me to sound more comfortable, eloquent and convincing. Are my points necessarily more valid because I can express them better?
No, that would be crossing the line.
Of course, I still stand by my points as being better and more worthwhile but that is because of their content, not because of how well I can deliver them.
Ultimately what I'm searching for is a way to make a difference in the minds of people who've not really considered this social and cultural issue fully. I don't expect to convert a significant population overnight but I would like to generate dialogue, thought and start to change opinions. Even if I influence just a few people to think about the other side of the debate I can hope that that will spread as they start to talk with family and friends about their new perspectives. Social change comes in small steps after all.
What I need to be careful with is crossing the line professionally. My job brings me into contact with a great many people and gives me the chance to talk/discuss things with them. It does not give me carte blanche to start preaching or forcing people to agree with me because I'm the teacher and can argue in English better than they can. I have classroom power to a degree, but it's not my place to use that to support an agenda beyond that of educating students.
I still bring this issue up from time to time with my higher level students but I do my best to stay out of the debate as much as possible and just interject points in the manner of "what some people say is...", which seems to keep things less heated as I can be the neutral moderator. If students then ask me what I think, I put in my personal opinion but keep it out of the debate. If someone wants to talk to me afterwards then that's fine but the lesson time isn't taken up with my views.
I'm not trying to make people change everything about themselves either. If you don't like or agree with something then there's nothing wrong with that, but controlling the legal system to prevent others from doing that thing does not strike me as right. In this case, the argument is about trying to stop people in love from choosing to share their lives together and make a public commitment to each other.
In the pictures above I see three couples who are happy and in love. To me, marriage is a wonderful thing that shows love and willingness to make a commitment. The more happy couples there are in the world providing stable families for children, the better off we will be.
