Much to the chagrin of President Bush,
conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly and others of their
ilk, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Tuesday that
homosexual couples have the right to marry. This landmark ruling,
the first to recognize the right to marriage for gay and lesbian
couples, has drawn mixed responses from across the country. Here in
Michigan, the issue of gay marriage is also eliciting debate. Last
month, state Sen. Alan Cropsey (R-DeWitt) proposed a state
constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and all forms
of civil union between same-sex couples. The Michigan Legislature,
as well as Michigan’s citizens, should oppose this faulty
proposal.

Much to the chagrin of President Bush,
conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly and others of their
ilk, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Tuesday that
homosexual couples have the right to marry. This landmark ruling,
the first to recognize the right to marriage for gay and lesbian
couples, has drawn mixed responses from across the country. Here in
Michigan, the issue of gay marriage is also eliciting debate. Last
month, state Sen. Alan Cropsey (R-DeWitt) proposed a state
constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and all forms
of civil union between same-sex couples. The Michigan Legislature,
as well as Michigan’s citizens, should oppose this faulty
proposal.

The strongest opposition to gay marriage and gay unions comes,
not surprisingly, from members of the religious Right. Their
argument asserts that homosexual marriage will violate the sanctity
and meaning of marriage. This is not a sustainable argument.

There are two different aspects of modern marriage: religious
and civil. Unfortunately, religious conservatives fail to recognize
this distinction. Religious marriage has no legal significance; in
order for a couple to receive marriage benefits, they must register
for a marriage license. The marriage license is essentially the
civil aspect to modern marriage — it is an official, binding
document that entitles a couple to the numerous legal benefits of
marriage. This legal marriage is completely secular and entirely
separate from religious marriage. This allows both to operate
independently, with different policies and standards.

If gay marriage were legalized across the nation, only the civil
aspect of modern marriage would be affected. Religious institutions
would still be free to decide their own marriage policies. If a
particular church choose not to marry gay couples, there would be
no laws coercing them to wed a homosexual couple. But gay couples
would have the right to enter into a civil marriage in order to
receive legal benefits.

Some argue that allowing homosexual
couples to marry would create a bad precedent and open the
floodgates of deviant behavior. Polygamy, pedophilia, incest and
bestiality, they intone, would follow. They reason that if two
people of the same gender are allowed to marry, then the government
would have no power to stop several people from entering a single
marriage. It could not prevent an adult from marrying a child, nor
could it dissuade two close relatives from spawning children the
likes of which have never been seen. People would fight for the
right to marry members of their favorite variety of barnyard
animal. These arguments are immature and uninformed. States have
laws regulating the age of sexual consent and often age regulations
for marriage as well. Those closely related by blood are
discouraged and often forbidden to obtain marriage licenses because
of the complications commonly associated with incest. As marriage
requires consent, no animals could be subject to marriage with
humans, save for a select few primates with advanced sign-language
skills and, perhaps, dolphins. There are clear drawbacks to these
behaviors that have already been addressed by lawmakers around the
country, but these concerns are not valid reasons to oppose the
marriage of two consenting adults because of their
homosexuality.

The Massachusetts court rejected the main argument against gay
marriage, which was that the primary purpose of marriage is for
procreation. It acknowledged that heterosexuals who are incapable
of conceiving can still marry. Arguing that gays should not be able
to marry because they cannot reproduce is a logically flawed
position that is largely based on simple prejudice. There are other
important reasons people marry, including survivor benefits,
sharing health benefits and filing taxes jointly. Without the legal
status of marriage, gay citizens are not permitted these basic
rights.

One major concern that arises with the
issue of same-sex marriage is the possible consequence of gay
couples adopting children. They fear that children raised by two
parents of the same sex would be subject to ridicule and isolation.
This situation parallels the issue of interracial marriage that the
nation faced decades ago. Many feared that if children grew up in
interracial families, they would be harassed and abused by other
children and society in general. Since the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down state laws banning interracial marriage in its 1967
Loving v. Virginia ruling, people of different ethnic backgrounds
have been having and raising children together all across the
nation. Have many of these children suffered ridicule? Yes,
especially in the early days following the Supreme Court
ruling.