If a moral, as defined by Merriam-Webster, means “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior,” then it seems to me some of what is holding back gay rights has to do with perception of how someone becomes a homosexual.

Morals are based on right and wrong; they are based on choice and the willingness to do something. Believing that homosexuality is a choice gives a sound moral basis for judging things along moral lines. If, however, one believes homosexuality is not a choice, but a trait a person is born with, the moral argument does not hold sway because the element of choice has been removed.

I have always had a problem with morals. Not necessarily because I have so few, but because too often they seem to be used as justifications for doing ill in the name of good. Clearly, gay rights is the issue of the day. With the imminent showdown over the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and challenges to gay marriage bans across the state, I feel inclined to say: “Same s—-, different day.”

I’m not entirely sure why this country feels the need to go through cycles of justifying discrimination based on some moral basis. It’s like some strange hazing ritual this country embraces for every ethnic group that pops up. We decide what is right, and then use it to justify making others wrong. I have, on more than one occasion, thought the moral majority was the worst thing to happen to anything, ever.

These are, for the most part, moments of knee-jerk anger. For example, I was angered when I heard black voters had a significant hand in passing Proposal 8 in California.

It struck me as odd that a group known for being oppressed would turn around and oppress another group. It angers me to see hesitance toward allowing a legal recourse to removal from service to one’s country. I wonder why the government, in the name of morality, is able to keep a group from state-offered privileges based on the notion that it is not morally acceptable to the populace. Even as I am aware the term “tyranny of the majority” is not exactly applicable in this situation, it sounds surprisingly fitting.

I recognize the societal need for morals. They often represent the baseline feeling of the members of society. As rational people, we can agree murder is a bad thing because we do not want to be murdered. Likewise, theft and fraud are morally repugnant to us because we do not want to be robbed or defrauded.

My question is: Where do the morals of oppression fit in?

The basis of a great deal of what we believe is based on the idea — biblical and otherwise — that we should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. Who wants to be oppressed or denied something because they are different? People hide behind the idea that we are somehow protecting society, but how does one protect society by going against the very tenets that support its existence?
Morals are subjective. What is right for one person might be wrong for another. They change over time — as attitudes toward interracial marriage, Japanese-Americans and the Irish have proven. Perhaps in picking the morals we choose to shape our society, we should look to the ones that recognize the most basic need of any human being: The right to freedom from oppression.

David Barker is the State News opinion editor. Reach him at barkerd@msu.edu.