In a previous issue of The BG News, an outspoken columnist spoke out against gay marriage under the pretext of an association with “redefining words.”
While I have the utmost respect for each member of the University community, I must vigorously disagree with this person’s premise.
His argument, having been established to elicit emotion opposed to reason, compares the pro-gay movement with murder among both the Nazis and the Soviet Union. Furthermore, while this attempts to draw on historical principles, it does so poorly. The historical pretexts of marriage include several millennia of civil contracts rerouted to economic gain. In actuality, there is little historical premise to even justify state recognition of marriage, let alone state endorsed selective exclusion of marriage.
While this staff member’s interpretation of history is primitive at best, this is not what I take the greatest exception to. Instead, I must highlight the demeaning principles established in the previous column. In his column, he claimed that while homosexuals should be treated with respect, the future of marriage should not be held to a cause that assists only a few.
As a heterosexual man, I find these words deeply offensive. What the columnist has essentially stated here is as such: He believes we should deal with homosexuals as any other group whom we must be reminded to tolerate. However, their civil liberties are not important to the rest of us. Stating that the benefits of universal marriage benefit only those who can marry as a result is beyond condemnable. As an American, I believe I have much to gain from actively fostering a society that defines individuals by their character, as opposed to superficial stimuli. The columnist’s view is similar to an individual stating their belief that only females benefited from the 19th Amendment. For this reason, this argument fails to recognize the society-wide benefits associated with fair, equal and non-discriminatory practices.
Now, to cite the African-American Civil Rights campaign, he also stated in writing his support for “Separate but Equal” in today’s society. He wrote in support for civil unions, but against marriage. This issue is of the gravest importance. His argument for the importance of words appears to be laden with discriminatory tendencies. He believes there is hope for civil unions to be allowed, but he clearly does not quite feel ready for homosexuals to be allowed to use the word “marriage.” This, dear reader, is the definition of why the Supreme Court previously disallowed the practice of “Separate but Equal.”
In actuality, we all have much to gain from allowing gay marriage. Perhaps one day we will be able to put petty squabbles behind us and focus on issues which are actually relevant to this great nation’s success. Maybe we will even have a time when false arguments are not made under historical pretext. Until that day comes, arguments in history should be left to the historians while others can focus on their specialization.
Respond to Greg at
