The Reality of Equality

Click on the article's title to view/add comments.

With the great marriage debate raging across the country, and having its day (days really) in court I thought it would be useful to take a step back and look at the realistic impacts on our everyday life should the Supreme Court decide to invalidate DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act), or strike down California Prop. 8.1

There is passion on either side of the issue, and no one doubts the sincerity of the beliefs of either side, both of which engage in a constant prediction of what equal marriage rights would really mean. Those in opposition to granting equal rights to homosexuals make impassioned, though rarely constitutional, arguments as to why things should stay as they are.

The most common anti-gay marriage argument stems from the narrative of gay people being different, having an "alternative" lifestyle, and breaking with "tradition."  While such words can seem innocuous, in reality they are unmistakable statements that gay people should be kept out of sight, so they are more easily kept out of mind. I don't know when living with your significant other, or wanting to marry them, became "alternative" but I'm glad to live in the time when we will welcome it to "normal."

Sure, traditionally we haven't seen men marrying men, or a woman standing at the alter waiting for her bride to be given away by her fathers, but then again we hadn't seen many black people marrying white people until 50 years ago.

Yes, "gay marriage" (why not just equal rights?) may be a new thing, but so were things like cars, air travel, lunch meat, television, the internet, and formaldehyde at one point.2 It is no doubt that each of these things changed life as we knew it, but that is part of living in a country like the United States of America.

In 1776 it was not normal to try and govern with a democratic-republic style government. Before 1863 it wasn't normal for black people to own land, work for pay, or be anything but slaves held in permanent bondage. Until 1896 the idea of the internal combustion engine vehicle was just that, an idea. Prior to 1920 women, of all colors, were denied the essential participation in the democratic process through voting. In 1969 we went to the moon. In space. During the 1980's Al Gore (or so I've heard) revolutionized the world with the internet. None of those things were traditional, and all of them started out as an "alternative" idea.

It seems that many opponents want to use the classic scare tactic to rally support by preaching about all of the bad that will happen when marriage equality occurs, and how it will change our very societal fabric. In response, I've created a list both of things that will and won't happen:

Things that WILL happen when marriage equality occurs: higher revenue for marriage licenses; more legally bound stable homes for adoptions; more business for wedding planners, banquet halls, etc. (you know, because of all of the weddings); more work for family law and estate attorneys (because of all the prenups, divorces, and new estate plans); more people getting to be at the bed side of the person they love while in the hospital; more monogramming; lots of Facebook relationship status changes; people we all know and love will get the same treatment as straight people under the law; and lots more good stuff.3

Things that WON'T happen:  the world stops turning; current marriages become invalidated; people marry dogs; people marry goats; people marry anything that isn't a person who can enter into a legally binding contractual relationship; non-gay persons will magically become gay; all children will be gay; the human race will cease to exist; churches will be forced to recognize the marriages by the state in their own congregations (they already don't have to do that, as in the Catholic Church); marriage will become less of a joke than it already is to some people; the "american" way of life will change; family values will be destroyed. 

The US is a progressive nation. We always have been. Our founders bucked tradition, and that attitude of always fighting for a better tomorrow has lived on through future generations. We have been handed the torch by the generation that desegregated schools, enfranchised the minority vote, and elected the first Catholic President.4

The sounds of thumping won't go away immediately. They will remain audible far into the future, but the law and our constitution provide a path to ensure equality. That path is one we should not shy from today with the intention to try again tomorrow, or the next day. Each step may not be the same size, or have the same impact, but together they lead to the light of equality and justice that eludes so many because of the prejudices of so few. 

-Adam Sommer



1.    I don't expect the court to do either. I expect them to rule that the only issues they can decide are standing, and give a round about victory to equal rights advocates, but that is a discussion best saved for June, once we have the opinions in hand and not just the records of the oral arguments. 

2.    Seriously, President Lincoln was one of the first well known public figures to have an extended funeral, and it was made possible by the fairly new advent of using embalming fluids to preserve the body. Pretty wild stuff. 

3.    In short, it will probably help the economy in some ways, and more importantly it will grant equality to those who already have the right to possess it. 

4.    Depending on who you talk to this generation gave us the first Islamic President, but I digress.

GIVE MY WIFE A GUN. ALSO, GIVE MY WIFE A RAISE.

In the wake of yet another school shooting, this time involving children as young as 5, the gun control debate has jumped to the front of the line, even over shadowing the dreaded fiscal cliff (remember that scary thing) and has potentially created more line drawing than the recent Presidential election. Groups and individuals on both sides are attempting to advocate, or pretend like they are not advocating, one direction or another. The “we shouldn't talk about gun control at a time like this” side is, in reality, just trying to avoid the debate. On the other side the “this is all about guns” argument may be missing the point of what happened, and the mental health issue cannot be ignored. But I’m not going to try and solve the problem, mostly because I don’t know how. Rather, I want to address a totally different aspect: arming teachers. 

I've heard this argument before, and it’s getting a lot of play right now. Give the teachers all guns, and they can stop this from happening. It’s more logical than many want to admit, since it is true that a person inside the building being attacked could possibly stop the attacker by shooting them, or that it could create a deterrent from the attack in the first place.1 Again, this seems logical, but it discounts the mental health issues of these shooters who probably aren't thinking about the deterrent of an armed teacher.

But really, why not just arm the teachers? There are a couple of reasons why this is a terrible (not illogical, not impossible, just terrible) idea. 

Wait... I thought you had the key to the safe!

First of all, not every teacher wants a gun. I’d even be willing to say, with no data to back me up, that if asked, a majority of teachers would not want to have a gun in the classroom. Plus, you have to train all of them not only on how to shoot a gun, but on how to shoot a gun in a situation that our Police and Armed forces actively train for. Essentially, our teachers would need to be militarized to properly handle the weapon under the stress of the situation.2 Plus, you have to keep the guns in operating shape. You can’t just put them in a lock box in the class room and leave them there. They have to be cleaned and maintained. Also, who will have a key to that gun? Just the teacher? The teacher and the principal? What about the custodians (who I’m assuming are also armed in this scenario) and the substitute teachers? 

How do we track the gun? Who owns it? Who is responsible for the gun if a student gets a hold of it? What if it goes off on accident?3 What if while trying to stop the intruder, the teacher shoots, misses and hits a child instead? 

These are not questions of a skeptic. These are the actual questions that need to be answered to make this a reality. Changes in policy, or legislation, are not as simple as “We should arm teachers!” followed by “OK lets do it!”  This type of change requires real thought, real analysis. It will also require something that I think many people don’t want. Higher taxes. 

It costs how much?

Why higher taxes? Lets think about this. We have a group of people who spend all day teaching, and sadly raising, many of our country’s children. They are already put in a tough position, and now we are asking them to become semi-on duty Police Officers?

First, lets imagine the cost just to put a gun in every class room. Assuming we can agree on which gun manufacturer to give this giant government contract to, each class room will need at least one gun to make this scenario a reality. I’m going with a Smith & Wesson Model 36. It’s a .38 special, standard barrel, shoots +P rounds, and being a revolver will create far less chance of jamming in a time of crisis. Those cost, according to Smith & Wesson’s website, $750.00 each, new, because I assume we aren't giving our teachers second hand weapons to protect our children. (Really the price is $749.00, but for the sake of math lets add the dollar.) According to the most recent census date, there are just over 7 million (7,000,000) teachers in the United States. So, for ease of calculation, it would cost (assuming no discount for volume) $5,250,000,000.00 (five billion, with a B) to give every teacher a gun. 

That is the first funding hurdle for a country that constantly slashes education spending. 

Second, what are we going to do with teacher pay? Do we really expect a public school teacher to carry a gun and put themselves in the place of danger (while simultaneously educating and raising children) for $30,000.00 a year? Not to mention, the cost of the training that will have to occur, and be paid for. Add to that the cost of maintaining that training, and retraining when a teacher changes districts. The salary would have to go up. Even if it was only $5,000.00 per year, per teacher, doing the math again, we get $350,000,000,000.00. That is three hundred fifty BILLION dollars. Where is this money going to come from? You? Your taxes? Firearm sales? Lottery sales? 

Focus on the kids. 

There is nothing wrong with responding to this string of shootings with anger, outrage, or fear. All are rational and understandable. It is even logical to think that arming teachers makes for a safer school, but lets think down the line. What are we really willing to do to make that a reality? Do we expect our teachers to spend their money, of which they have very little, to arm themselves? Do we expect those who don’t like/want/need a gun to get one and use one, just to make us feel safer? The second amendment may preserve the right to bear arms, but it surely does not create the right to force another to do so. 

The answer to keeping our children safe in schools, malls, movie theaters, and in general probably isn't solved by giving teachers guns. Sure, we can post security guards in schools, or add a position to every county’s sheriff department for a deputy who’s entire job is working at the school but ultimately we are forced to deal with cost, logistics, and the freedom of others who may not want to hold the gun at all. How do we reconcile the ideals of freedom with forcing someone to act against their will?

My wife is a teacher. She brings home stories about her job all the time, many of them funny things a child said, but so often they are about a child that just needs more love, more attention, and more care. Do we really want teachers to have guns, or should we instead focus on spending more time with our children at home, and paying better attention to mental illness? I suspect the later of the two is more cost effective, but it sure doesn't make as good of an internet post.

-Adam Sommer

1.   Although it could also create an escalating arms race, much like the cold war where both sides just keep building their arms until an attack would be so devastating it isn't worth it.

2.  Remember the shooter at the military base? They were all trained, yet the shooter killed people prior to being stopped.

3.  Accidental gun deaths are real, so are accidental gun injuries.