I don't remember this being discussed on the listserv (which sorta surprises me) but Hunter Williams editorial in today's (the 17th) Alligator brings it back to the forefront, especially since he's a regular writer on here.

It's sorta interesting that his editorial blasting gay marriages came out today, as just last night I was reading an article about another Oregon county allowing gay marriage. And I was thinking to myself, how could any rational person be opposed to this without resorting to the religious argument? How can people say that something between two grown adults that hurts no one in any kind of way is wrong? How can someone be opposed to creating more love and happiness in the world?

And then this morning I got my answer, some of which Bush used in his proposal of the constitutional amendment, which was that it "threatens civilization" and the family structure. So I've got to ask: How does two people who love each other, and want to spend the rest of their lives together, even remotely threaten marriage? With the sky high divorce rate we have now, isn't that the exact kind of thing that we should be striving toward? How exactly will gay marriage lead to a decrease in marriages like Hunter proposes? I'm really not understanding how two girls marrying in California affects my parent's marriage of 31 years and their love for each other in ANY kind of way. To compare gay marriage to divorce since they're both "social experiments" is absurd. One is the unification of two people in love. The other is that anti-thesis of that. And the paragraph about Europe is completely insane. "Cohabitation, divorce, and illegitimacy rates have soared" in the US as well, and gay marriage isn't legal here yet. I fail to see how gay marriage has anything to do with the decline of marriage in Europe, or anywhere in the world.

He also tries to say that the only reason gays want to get married is to "legitmize" sex between the partners. Which people do not get married to have sex (hell, the running joke is that when you do get married, the sex disappears). This is not the 1800's where only people who are married have sex (er well they didn't talk about having it outside marriage). Gays want to get married because they love their partner. I really doubt having sex outside of marriage is the key motivation for this, except for perhaps the small minority that waits until marriage for sex.

He then writes that the purpose of marriage is to raise a family. So if one person in the couple is infertile, or they just don't want children, then they shouldn't be able to be married? Marriages between a man and woman without having kids or a family isn't uncommon, and it's a ridiculous argument to make that because gays can't have children of their own that there is no need for marriage. Which in a related note, I don't see any reason that a child shouldn't grow up in a loving caring household, regardless if the parents are straight or gay. Yes, there needs to be role models for each sex, I agree with that. But single mothers and single fathers are able to provide that for their children through friends or other adult figures, and so can homosexuals. It's not an unprecedented thing to have a single sex household (via single parents) and still have opposite sex role models. I do agree with his final assertion, that the basic building block of civilization is the family. But I fail to see how gay marriage prevents this.

I also agree that marriage is in trouble. The divorce rate is way too high (though I think part of that is that it's much more socially acceptable to get one now, so instead of staying with someone you don't like, you can get a divorce) and marriage is taken too lightly a lot of the time (s'up Britney Spears). I agree that children need to be raised in stable households, with parents that love them. But allowing gays to marry doesn't harm this goal, it only helps it. As I said above, isn't a committed relationship between two people in love what we want more of? What iota of difference does it make if they're different sexes or the same sex? I'm sure much will be made by the right when the first gay divorce happens, and it won't be a "good" thing, but it's no better or worse than what heterosexual couples have been doing.

As far as the religious argument goes, that the Bible says it's wrong, the Bible also says a lot of other crazy things that people pay no attention to anymore. But regardless, no one is trying to legally force the Catholic/Baptist/insert-your-religion-here church to marry gays, and if people still want to think it's a dirty thing, well that's their right. But, in this land of religious freedom, why are we moving back to the middle ages where religion controls the government? Again, I'm not seeing any kind of good non-religious reasoning against gay marriage, and it's a giant step backwards to let a religious sect control government policy and restrict rights in the constitution.

I also find it somewhat hypocritical that the party that doesn't like big government and government regulations wants to regulate one of the most personal decisions that someone can make: The person that they choose to love the rest of their life.

To sum up this way too long email, and why I even bothered to write all this, is that I've read articles on-line written by gay couples who wish they could be married, to be able to say "I do" to their partner of years and decades, to be able to have the full rights of a married couple, to express their love and devotion the way millions of people have. But just because they happen to like guys instead of girls, or girls instead of guys, they can't. And then I think: I won't have to worry about that. When I find that one special girl I won't have go "Well gee, I'd like to get married because you're everything I could hope for and love in a person. Too bad it's illegal" just because I happen to get that butterfly's-in-stomach feeling from girls and not guys, strikes me as incredibly unjust and just plain wrong. How can you say to someone "Your love isn't real. It isn't worthy." solely because they they like guys and not girls? I truly hope that we'll look back on this era like we do now on the civil rights movement, and wonder how could have ever possibly even thought to deny the rights of a person because of their race or sexual orientation. I find it astounding that people even oppose it, it just seems so obvious that the morally right and just thing is to let people who love each other marry. How can you argue against LOVE?