College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Marriage should be open to all

By Brendan Benedict

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Updated: Saturday, November 14, 2009

One would think that after Obama's big win, I'd have nothing else to criticize. However, I was disappointed in the people of California for voting to ban same-sex marriage. While I'm not personally vested in this issue (I'm not gay, I know few people who are, and none of them live in California), I feel that there are some things that need to be said.

I've heard arguments against gay marriage over and over again. Like the claim that extending marriage to same-sex couples would "hurt the sanctity" of marriage. Marriage is an institution so sanctified that it half the time ends in divorce, but is nevertheless extended to skirt-chasers, child molesters, and Britney Spears.

The current disparity of marriage rights has caused many to stay in the closet and pursue a "traditional" marriage instead. Was marriage sanctified for Jim McGreevy or Larry Craig? Enfranchising homosexuals with this right would not only be a measure of equality, but one that actually improves the image of marriage.

It's also been said that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because they cannot have children together. This argument is nonsensical - plenty of people get married today unable or unwilling to have children - should we ban their marriage, too? Should post-menopausal women or those who have become sterile because of chemotherapy be barred from marriage?

Even though they can't have their own biological children, homosexual couples can still adopt, and that is something that is desperately needed in a world with 143 million orphans.

Some people are more open-minded and believe that there should be same-sex civil unions for homosexuals and marriage for heterosexuals, with both providing the same legal benefits, but this is another example of the unconstitutional "separate but equal" notion.

Excluding homosexuals from marriage is tantamount to the exclusion and segregation that African-Americans experienced in this country. In both cases, two separate standards have been erected on a seemingly arbitrary difference.

In the case of segregation, blacks could only use certain water fountains or eat in certain places or go to certain schools because they were black.

Bringing it back to the current issue, even marriage for African Americans was discriminated against, and Keith Olbermann put it best in saying, "The parents of the president-elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one-third of the states of the country [in 1967] their son grew up to lead."

We finally made strides in finding this unconstitutional.

For this reason, we can't settle for civil unions for some and marriage for others. It is "separate but equal" all over again, and is contrary to the very anti-discrimination suits and laws already on the books.

Finally, same-sex marriage doesn't harm anyone. Why are so many people against it? Homosexuals aren't trying to take away anyone's rights, and they're not forcing their beliefs on anyone - they just want room for their own.

No one is saying the Catholic Church or any others have to bless same-sex marriages or believe in them. If you're so opposed to gay marriage, don't get one. But by denying the right of homosexuals to get married, we as a society are denying the expression of love (in a legal and social sense).

There is so much hate and death and destruction in this world. We're fighting two wars, there are people plotting to attack us, there is genocide in Darfur. What this world needs is more love. With legal same-sex marriage, there is a chance, just a small chance, that more people will love each other. How can we as citizens of the freest nation in the world be opposed to that?

Perhaps it's time that we eliminate government-issued marriage licenses altogether and grant civil unions to gay and straight couples alike.

Let the churches settle what is and isn't marriage. As we look to the future after California's proposition, I'm uncertain of how we can come together and make progress on this issue, but I'm sure of one thing - I'll get letters.

Brendan Benedict is a Heights staff columnist. He welcomes comments at bbenedict@bcheights.com

Comments

Be the first to comment on this article!







log out