On Feb. 8, I attended a rally on Boston Common in support of an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution defining marriage as a heterosexual union only. Why? Because I was and still am a conservative Catholic who believes that homosexual acts are sinful and wrong, and that gay couples should not defile the sacred institution of marriage.
Nevertheless, the result of that rally was my complete opposition to this amendment. To some, this may come as a surprise, but when one looks closely at the issue, it becomes clear that this amendment, as well as many of its supporters' arguments, is absurd.
First, an amendment defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" has no place in the constitution of Massachusetts. As Martha B. Sosman and Francis X. Spina, justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, noted in their dissenting opinion on the Court's affirmation on Feb. 5, which ruled that "civil unions" do not fulfill their decision in Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, "This does not strike [us] as a dispute of any constitutional dimension whatsoever, and today's response from the Justices - unsurprisingly - cites to no precedent suggesting that the choice of differing titles for various statutory programs has ever posed an issue of constitutional dimension." The proposed amendment is of a type similar to the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) in the 1920s, and would most likely fail as miserably as did that one.
Indeed, adding an amendment of this sort to the Constitution opens up a slippery slope for the addition of more extreme applications of partisan morality. If we ban same-sex marriages, where will we stop? Will we ban adultery? Will we ban premarital sex?
Furthermore, Gov. Mitt Romney (R) stated lasted Wednesday, "I believe that policy of the nature that's being discussed is best not put in the constitution, but rather considered legislatively by statute." Unfortunately, Gov. Romney has been forced to support the current amendment because he sees it as the only way around the ruling of the SJC. Despite this fact, it seems clear that a constitutional amendment, even if it is the last apparent option, is still not one worth taking.
In spite of these logical arguments, I was in support of an amendment when I arrived at the rally on that Sunday afternoon. However, after sitting through almost two hours of one misguided speaker after another (though I must admit that one speaker did impress me in his address: Archbishop Sean O'Malley), I was quickly moved to the opposition.
As the rally opened, the band played songs like "Our God is an Awesome God," and "Jesus has done so much for me," while parading the flags of the Knights of Columbus and the Vatican in the background, and waving signs that said things like "Repent or Parish." Yet, they made the claim at the beginning of the rally "to be for all denominations." At that point I thought that, if there is to be any hope of passing this amendment, it must at least be done without an impassioned appeal to religion as its ground.
One of the first speakers was Ray Flynn, the former mayor of Boston. He said, "We do not tell our neighbors how to live their lives." He continued, "We can't let anybody take these rights from us," (this last statement referring to the right to vote on the amendment). Unfortunately, in telling same-sex couples that they cannot get married, we are telling them how to live their lives, and we are taking away their rights to the myriad benefits afforded opposite-sex couples under the law.
Next, a comment was made that homosexuality is a health risk. This is a blatantly illogical statement, for homosexual behavior is no more risky than heterosexual behavior of the same level of promiscuity. In fact, allowing same-sex marriages might in fact decrease this danger, because more homosexuals would settle down into monogamous relationships.
Finally, Joseph R. Nolan, retired Justice of the SJC, noted, "It is not an economic issue ... it is a religious, a moral issue." Again, I must question whether is makes sense to turn this into a religious question. Furthermore, it is an economic issue, for many of the benefits sought in marriage by same-sex couples are economic.
It pains me that people who share my religious and moral beliefs could be so thoughtless in expressing their views. Yet, I cannot bring myself to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. I would fully support a legislative ban on same-sex marriage that would not carry the full gravity of a constitutional amendment, but which unfortunately has been made impossible by the ruling of the SJC. In matters such as these, the government does have a responsibility to the moral code of our society, which is today increasingly under attack. I must resign myself, however, to endure this ruling of the SJC, much as I endure the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, until such time as they come to understand their ethical responsibilities.
Nathaniel Campbell is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences.
Be the first to comment on this article!