Bartz’s views on inequalities disturbing

I agree with state Sen. Merlin Bartz (March 14 guest column) that society has not and will not achieve true equality. It would be more accurate for him, though, to refer to his examples as preferential treatment rather than discrimination. This is more than a simple semantic difference.

It is true, for instance, that we encourage homeownership through tax laws. Yes, this is unfair, but we do not deny anyone the right to rent. This is a far cry from denying gay individuals the right to care for or to make end-of-life decisions about a partner. Bartz's willingness to equate the two situations is disturbing.

Bartz notes that individuals discriminate quite naturally against certain people. But to suggest that this makes it OK for government to do the same thing is also quite disturbing. Government should protect us against this inclination of individuals to discriminate.

His basic argument is that we discriminate in order to “promote an outcome that we ... seek and cherish.” The irony, though, is that the so-called “defense of marriage” act, while discriminatory, does not seek to promote or preserve marriage as an institution.

If that were really the goal, wouldn't we also deny the rights and privileges of marriage to someone who habitually divorces? Isn't this action just as damaging to the institution?

If our goal is really to preserve the institution, then we should discriminate against this behavior as well, but I believe this discrepancy shows the stated “goal” to be disingenuous at best.

Glenn Freeman

Cedar Rapids