should be able to marry
in America is about as sacred as our freedom to divorce,
but this sacred sentiment is continually used as a defense
against homosexual marriages. The government contends
that allowing homosexuals to openly legalize the love
they already outwardly express is wrong, because it
contradicts social norms.
Just for the record, homosexuality can hardly be considered
taboo. Television shows like NBCs Will and
Grace and Showtimes The L Word
openly discuss homosexuality. Howard Stern banks on
his lesbian interviews and make-out sessions.
Homosexuals hold steady jobs, own homes and cars, and
go to school. Heck, they even vote! If we had always
kept such a strong hold on social norms, there would
have never been a civil rights or womens suffrage
movement. Perhaps for some those were radical changes
as well, but culture is meant to evolve in order to
Connie Mackey of the Family Research Council criticized
a Massachusetts court which ruled in November that bans
on gay marriages are unconstitutional. Mackey argued
that culture historically defines family as one man
and one woman with the purpose of raising children.
Unfortunately, she does not discuss the rights of other
less controversial cultural deviants: single parents,
couples unable to have children or even couples that
dont want children.
Elizabeth Birch, director of the Human Rights Campaign,
told CNN the courts are not obligated to support the
popular vote. She reminded us that the purpose of the
constitution is to protect minority groups from the
wrath of the majority. Especially when the majority
is the hypocritical American public.
President Bush commented on his resolution to defend
the sanctity of marriage in his State of the Union speech,
which came after the court ruling. His stance is based
solely on the issue of homosexual marriages. Bush doesnt
seemed concerned with the majority of married couples
who divorce or commit adultery or abuse their spouses.
Somehow these discretions dont seem to break the
sanctity of marriage.
Stanley Kurtz of The Weekly Standard argues
against gay marriages because of what it might lead
to. Legalizing gay marriages would be the slippery slope
to legalizing polygamy and group marriage, Kurtz said.
But gay marriage will not lead to the slippery slope.
The slippery slope has already begun. It started when
we separated church from state. It started when we stopped
defining moral values for the nation. It started when
we allowed people the freedom to express themselves
their minds, their hearts, their rights.
But all this presupposes the bigger issue of the governments
right to involve in marriage at all. Marriage is only
sacred because it is an oath between two people and
occasionally their God. The governments consent
does not make it sacred, only legal. Allowing the government
to pick and choose which types of marriages are lawful
gives them the right to say who we can and cannot rightfully
love. If two people are willing to make such a serious
commitment, legalities become mere technicalities. It
wont stop the cultural change, and it is sad that
the government would even try.
Chacko is a senior news-editorial journalism major from