Attacks on same-sex marriage unjust

Negative views about gay marriage, such as the recent submission
by Adam Partridge (“Legalizing gay marriage not so
simple,” Feb. 24), are nothing new. But attacks on gay
marriage are unfounded.

Partridge’s first claim that San Francisco Mayor Gavin
Newsom had violated the rule of law is a terrible argument.
Partridge compares Newsom’s actions to such lawless activity
as “handing out illegal automatic assault rifles.” This
is a false comparison. Handing out assault rifles can be easily
proven to cause direct and irreparable harm to the residents of
California, but it would be extremely difficult to prove such harm
could come issuing of same-sex marriage licenses ““ unless you
count the bitter opponents who have been turning purple at the
thought of gay and lesbian couples marrying.

Literally thousands of gay, lesbian and bisexual Californians
pay taxes to the state of California and the federal government
like everyone else. Over a million couples in the United States are
same-sex. Yet only married, heterosexual couples receive the over
1,000 benefits from the government ““ many of which are
monetary.

Gay, lesbian and bisexual people are paying taxes, and we
deserve the right to equal protection under the law as guaranteed
by our Constitution.

An easy comparison to make is how, in the recent past, many
states barred biracial marriages. Nobody was technically being
“discriminated” against; anyone could take part in
marriage, just as long as that person married someone of the same
race.

In fact, in 1948, it was in California that the law prohibiting
biracial marriage was finally struck down. In that case, it was
argued that biracial couples were the “dregs of
society” and their children would be a “burden on
society.”

When the Supreme Court issued its final opinion, it stated that
the law was “not designed to meet a clear and present
peril.” Does a law banning same-sex marriages somehow meet a
clear and present peril?

So now we come to the argument of children. Both
Partridge’s submission and one by Adam Jones (“Where
have all the kids gone?” Feb. 23) cite the issue of children
as being a compelling reason to stop same-sex marriages. The truth
is, study after study has shown it is the relationship between the
parent and child that is most crucial in the child’s
development, not the type of family.

It is true that it might be difficult for a child with gay or
lesbian parents. But it might also be hard for a kid from a poor
background or a kid whose parents are overweight or shy. So, does
that mean we should stop poor parents from marrying? Or that people
who have a tendency to be overweight or have poor social skills
should rethink parenting?

Partridge suggests same-sex marriages could “lead to an
increase in promiscuity, poverty and crime at the expense of future
generations of children.” This simply follows a common
rhetoric that same-sex couples are somehow morally corrupt and
thus, would corrupt their children. No evidence ““ nor even
common sense ““ indicates that same-sex parenting would lead
to such unrelated outcomes as poverty and crime.

Same-sex marriage is not a “threat to the fabric of the
nation.” The simple truth is that same-sex couples exist
(over 1 million counted in the last census) and many have chosen to
have children. These couples will continue to exist and continue to
have children. The issue is making those unions and those families
valid.

How much harder is it for a kid (who already has his own
problems just being a kid) to hear that his parents aren’t as
good as other kids’ parents? What about someone trying to
coordinate joint-custody, joint-family insurance, or bereavement,
or sick leave for a spouse or child?

If you really want to think of the children, you would
wholeheartedly support the right for same-sex couples to marry and
weave their family structure into the diverse tapestry of families
in the United States.

Never forget that this nation has always been about change. If
the founding fathers of our country had just said,
“Let’s leave things the way they are,” we might
not have a democracy today.

Likewise, if abolitionists had not fought to end slavery because
it might ruin the social fabric of the South, or if women’s
suffragists had decided to let the time-honored tradition of
male-only voting stand, or even if civil rights activists had
settled for “separate but equal” status ““ which
amounted to separate and unequal ““ we would not live in the
free country we have come to know.

To claim that the legal definition of marriage should not be
changed because it has been done this way for a long time is
irresponsible to every person who has fought to make this country
free and just. Change is what this country is all about. Change
makes us stronger.

Levine is a second-year international developmental studies
student.