Every member of society is entitled to equal rights. Our Constitution states that, and I wholeheartedly support it. There is a widespread notion that our government is now obliged to recognize the right of gays to marry.
Many need to realize heterosexuals and homosexuals alike have identical rights in regards to the institution of marriage. For example, if a homosexual man wants to marry a consenting woman, that is his right.
Now, I am fully aware that this scenario does not represent the right of gay marriage that many people are clamoring for. However, it is technically accurate for me to claim that gay and straight people currently have the same rights concerning marriage.
The issue that has been so staunchly argued for and argued against is whether homosexuals have the right to redefine the law, specifically about marriage.
By prohibiting gay marriage, our government is not denying rights; it is enforcing the law. Marriage is defined by law as the union of one man and one woman. To demand a revision of this law is not a push for equal rights, but for special treatment.
To circumvent the law, as several public officials have done in Massachusetts and California, is blatant disregard of the law.
If this redefinition of marriage takes place, to stay consistent, we will eventually have to allow further redefinition of marriage. If the genders can be changed, what prevents the number of individuals be changed? If we allow gay marriage, then we must allow polygamy and other evolutions of marriage.
One argument that seeks to justify this redefinition is that since homosexuality is generally accepted by society, the government has no grounds to deny gay marriage rights. Society is not our governing body. When something is socially acceptable, it should not necessarily be legalized.
For example, it would not be a stretch to say that using hallucinatory substances is an acceptable practice in this generation, so using the same argument, our government has no business prohibiting the use of marijuana.
Besides the other problems this argument presents, it also ignores the problem of deciding what fraction of our population is required to make something socially acceptable and therefore legal.
While there are certainly homophobes out there, suggesting that every individual opposed to gay marriage is a homophobe creates a ridiculous stereotype.
Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply that an individual is also opposed to equal rights for all members of society.
Unfortunately, feelings are turning hostile toward those who oppose gay marriage, regardless of their particular position.
Opponents of gay marriage are seen as a group of hateful, intolerant, religious bigots. While one side pleads for tolerance, it is itself intolerant of those with opposing beliefs, and seeks to mow right over them.
While I am opposed to gay marriage, I accept and respect gay people. Every citizen deserves the same rights, regardless of sexual orientation.
I’m left wondering why proponents are fighting so hard for this redefinition of law, even resorting to attempt to trick us into thinking that gays are being denied equal rights. Homosexuals share the same rights of heterosexuals. Their proposed changing of marriage to a definition that fits their preference is not a crusade for equal rights.
There is the option of a civil union for those who want to make a public statement of their commitment to each other. If a civil union is not sufficient, then government benefits is left as the primary motivation.
If advocates for gay marriage want to claim that their efforts are for equality, personal values, tolerance, or even love, but in reality they are motivated by government benefits, then their claims are deceptive.
Barry Kirsch is a senior chemical engineering major. He can be reached at [email protected].