Guest Commentary: Gays have right to marriage

I've heard arguments from people opposed to gay marriage, but I am still not convinced. Most of all, I cannot understand why President Bush, with as much power and time he has in office, refuses to understand something fundamental about human beings who also deserve America's "defense" and "protection." But to instead threaten them with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, as he did last Tuesday, is a flagrant violation of civil rights and an insult to the integrity of this country. It's wrong.

  One argument against gay marriage is that the family is the basic unit of the traditional social fabric. But this is 2004. We've redefined reproduction with contraception, alternative methods of fertilization, and adoption. The availability of disease prevention has increased to just about every corner store (the knowledge of which President Bush seems intent on keeping out of public schools). The feminist and civil rights movements have helped open doors to all kinds of social liberation. The rising divorce rate not only attests to the limits of marriage, but it is also proof that the fundamental unit of the social fabric, the heterosexual family, is changing drastically. So if the social fabric is changing, and we are so advanced, then why should we not have the right to marry who we want, when we want and if we want?

  Another argument is that gay marriage does not function within the parameters of "legal" marriage, in that the purpose of "legal" marriage is to legitimize children. But because this is obsolete in the case of homosexuals, it would be absurd to use the legal definition as an excuse to deny them the right to marry. Therefore, not only should homosexual marriage be protected by the Constitution, but to prohibit it would also be unconstitutional. President Bush's threat to work "the constitutional process" based on his ideas of "the sanctity of marriage" will conflict heavily with the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The 14th Amendment makes the Bill or Rights applicable on the state level, and because the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is in technical violation of both of these amendments (its definition of marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" is in and of itself undeniably based on traditional religious practice), the states therefore have the constitutional right to veto this act. As a suggestion, perhaps President Bush needs to focus less on the definition of marriage, and more on the definition of "activist judges," "the people" and "irony."

  But I also refuse to believe that all those who are against gay marriage are against homosexuality in general. President Bush himself told us that he believes "we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization," while taking a clear stand on the issue. Some people, while accepting that consenting adults have the right to do what they want to do, are simply not comfortable with seeing it "being flaunted." Perhaps this is because they are uncomfortable with public displays of affection in general, or that the concept of homosexuality is so alien that it is difficult for them to understand, or maybe they are simply homophobic. But the myth that gay people are all as flamboyant as the guys on "Queer Eye" needs to be dispelled.  

  Furthermore, sexuality is something that a person is born with--not a "decision" as President Bush inferred last Tuesday. Most gay people will tell you that they have always been gay, but have faced an unbelievable amount of social pressure to stay in the closet. These social pressures were made prevalent even by President Bush's speech last Tuesday night, where the same words he used to refer to homosexuality as a threat to the social fabric were used to refer to terrorism as a threat to homeland security: "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage," "America will... defend the security of our country." It is irrational and cruel to think that the two are equally dangerous. A couple committed to spending their lives together is very different from a group of men committed to hijacking four commercial airlines full of hundreds of innocent people and suicide bombing them into buildings full of more innocent people. I have friends who saw people jumping out of the top floors of the World Trade Center, and you want to tell me that a gay couple produces the same effect?