Brian Kutzley’s last column, “The Alarming Revolution,” [Sept. 25] referred to a question I had asked him at a panel where the issue of homosexual marriage was being debated. He failed to answer it then, and he fails to answer it now. Kutzley used the slippery slope argument (which anyone who knows anything about logic knows is an invalid way to justify a position), claiming that if we allow gays to marry, what’s next? Polygamy? Incest? Man marrying his pet turtle? (Actually, that last statement on man/turtle relations was made by Sen. John Cornyn of Texas (a conservative Republican, surprise surprise), not Kutzley.)

During the question and answer period, I asked him if there was any reasonable explanation why the government should be able to favor one form of sexuality which harms no one and is between consensual adults, over another. I was anxious to hear his response because I believe if the government is not able to pass laws respecting an establishment of an official religion, then it certainly should not be able to pass laws respecting the establishment of an official sexuality. That’s what my liberal values teach me, anyways.

But I understand there are those out there who do not share my liberal values. Those like Kutzley who responded to my question by using the bandwagon argument (another logical fallacy), claiming that the state has the right to discriminate because the majority of the voting population had chosen to deny those of different sexual persuasions equal rights under the law. He used this same argument a couple of weeks ago in one of his columns to justify the labeling of homosexuals as deviants on par with drug addicts (gee, what a class act). This argument defies reason, just because 300 million people say the Earth is flat, does not mean the Earth is flat. Surely he would not agree that the laws of slavery and segregation made against ethnic minorities by the state were justified because the majority of the people (on the basis of their conservative values) decided to deny equal rights under the law for the seemingly “deviant” groups of their day. Luckily there were Supreme Court judgments and a Civil War to restore those rights to our fellow citizens.

Kutzley now concedes in his latest column that there really is no logical reason why we are denying our fellow citizens equal rights. He claims that “some values should be really sacred”” I agree with that statement. Some of our values should be beyond reproach; those of justice, freedom, community, equality, and most of all, reason. Any value that’s based on bigotry, ignorance and inequality I believe is our moral duty to eliminate.

Holding on to one value for the sake of it being “traditional” is illogical and harmfully conservative, and it retards the quality of our society. So I’ll repeat my question once more, what right does the government have to deny equal rights to its citizens? And no, I’m not joking.

Sean Lutzmann is a sophomore majoring in political science.