Columnist Andrew Clark, a sophomore, defends his decision to vote for California’s Proposition 8:
“I’m coming out of the closet – as a Californian, I voted Yes on Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage. Not because of religious reasons, and not because the Bible tells me to. Rather, for entirely secular reasons, I don’t think gay marriage is something that California, or the United States, needs to pursue.”
Read his full column here.
Commentary from the opinions editors, op-ed columnists and The Hatchet's Editorial Board
Director of the GW Institute for Nanotechnology Michael Keidar spent the last three years developing a cancer cell-killing medical device that he said could revolutionize the disease’s treatment worldwide.
The problem with growing up is that there is always someone telling us we are not old enough. And yet, you would think that as young adults, we would finally be over it.
What’s not to love about graduation season? It is filled with senior send-offs, family get-togethers and free food.
GWids are the equivalent of students’ social security numbers on campus.
Transfer students do not enroll at GW for the Mount Vernon Campus experience. They come here to take advantage of city life in Foggy Bottom.
As camera flashes flickered over a sea of tassels, two Columbian College of Arts and Science professors urged graduates to cast their fears aside and forge fresh paths to success.
I never understood why people refer to cities as if they were human until I left Sevilla, Spain. My feelings toward leaving my newfound home are so complex, it's as if I am leaving the love of my life.
Vol. 109
An Independent Student Newspaper
Serving The George Washington University Community Since 1904
“I don’t think gay marriage is something that California, or the United States, needs to pursue.”
It is certainly a fundamental right. When every other group in the country is granted guardian rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney and spousal health coverage, gays are being discriminated against and disadvantaged.
For you to think it’s a matter of opinion is categorically false and demeaning. Anyone who is an opponent of gay marriage is an opponent of gay people, no better than the racists in the deep south 40 years ago.
Wonderfully written article. Dismissing ALL religion, the act of homosexuality is unnatural. It is as Darwin described it, a mutation. So this means gays don’t have a choice. In regards to advancement of society, it is counterproductive and ALL gay individuals owe their life to heterosexuality. We needed bend over to provide this group with special rights allowing them to rewrite the description and meaning of words. Marriage is and has always been between one man and one woman. This bind is what holds the fabric of society together.
Thank you for telling the other side of the story. The opposition to Prop 8 want all of us to believe that anybody who supports Prop 8 hates gays and lesbians. I am sure you will be accused of this personally. However, the majority of people I know who support Prop 8 are kind, accepting people with many friends and relatives that are gay and have no problem with their chosen lifestyle. It is a much more complicated issue than they want us to believe. Too much to cover in these comments, but look at the ongoing lawsuits in MA for a few examples. I will add that I am confused as to the sudden outcry (i.e. protests, attacks, vandalism) — did nobody notice when similar props were passed in about 30 other states (including two other states just this election)?
This article is infuriating. Although the point about this movement being a situation of “couple’s rights” as opposed to civil rights is an interesting view point, it doesn’t address the majority of the concerns that are under the surface. It’s an issue of respect. For a government to tell you that your love is less valid and that you cannot have the same benefits at any other couple in love is disheartening and emotionally harmful. Tax benefits aren’t just about finances, they symbolize the devaluation of your feelings. If it were just an issue that only affected couples, single individuals would find no grievance. Clearly that isn’t true. It affects anyone who can rationally think about love and relationships. I’m straight, so this isn’t a grievance that directly affects who I love or my ability to marry, but it does affect many who I love dearly. It is in many ways discrimination. There used to be laws that prohibited interracial marriage, because it wasn’t “proper”, it was a “social taboo”, it made Americans “uneasy”. Our nation saw the light and realized that that love is no less valid than members of the same race who wish to marry. Hopefully our nation will realize that no matter how “uncomfortable” homosexual marriage may make some, it’s not about them. Telling people that their love is less valuable is a tragedy that Americans can (and should) overcome.
Before the author claims to have analyzed “marriage laws in the United States, he should take a look at Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision which struck down bans on interracial marriage. Upon looking at it, he will see that the two main arguments in this editorial were preempted by Earl Warren in 1967. In the opinion, the Court firmly rejected the argument that because blacks and whites were equally disallowed to marry each other, the law did not violate the equal protection clause. (As a side note, when one is willing to admit in writing that he is using “odd, backdoor logic,” he should really reconsider his argument.)
Secondly–in a sentence begging to be proof read–, the author writes, “The gay marriage movement wants to frame this issue as an oppressive struggle for freedom and equality and an end to discrimination, particularly that there is a fundamental human right to marriage.” Fortunately, the “gay marriage movement” doesn’t need to claim that there is a fundamental right to marriage. The Supreme Court has already done that for them. Again, in Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Warren writes, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes [surely denies due process].” That is to say, it is established United States law that marriage is both a “basic civil right” and a “fundamental freedom.”
While the issues of interracial marriage and same sex marriage are not wholly analogous, the legal arguments are. If the author should decide while reading Loving to do the rest of the research he should have done in “analyzing marriage laws in the United States,” he might also want to check out Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision which legalized gay marriage and which will do a far better job than I could in explaining why it is that gay Americans should be allowed to marry whom they love just as Mr. and Ms. Loving did.
While the author is right in asserting that loopholes in the tax system are “hardly the work of hateful discrimination,” he is woefully naive is saying that “ballot initiative[s] that granted gay partners the right to hospital visitation would pass in any state.” While hateful discrimination against gays may not live in the United States tax code, it certainly does live, and I was extremely saddened to see it within the pages of The Hatchet this morning.
So theoretically, a gay person and I have the exact same right under “California law: We can marry someone of the opposite sex who is older than 16 if we pay 40 bucks and get tested for HIV. That gay person can’t marry a man, but I can’t do it either. So am I being discriminated against? Is he?”
How would you feel about a law that said anybody can get married so long as it is to a member of the same race. Tis would mean that African Americans could not marry members of other races, but neather could white people. Would this not be discrimination? All races would be able to marry and have the same rights, wouldent they?
This is a very, very stupid article.
“the gay marriage movement is seeking rights for “couples,” a vague societal concept that is formed much later in life and easily made or broken.”
Yes. The right for one person to legally couple with another person whom they love. Why does the fact that it’s made later in life or easily broken matter? 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, yet they receive the benefit of recognized marriages. What are you talking about?
“Pushing to legalize gay marriage and the rights of couples is quite new and quite another thing.”
It is “quite new” and “Quite another thing”. I’m not sure quite how this makes it unreasonably to pursue. Every fundamental right we have was once quite new. Quite.
“So theoretically, a gay person and I have the exact same right under California law: We can marry someone of the opposite sex who is older than 16 if we pay 40 bucks and get tested for HIV. That gay person can’t marry a man, but I can’t do it either. So am I being discriminated against? Is he?”
But then he or she will be living a lie because they’ve been forced to marry someone because society says so as opposed to because they love someone or remain unable share in the rights and happiness of married couples because boys kissing boys grosses out old people in Orange County. The answer is that the gay person, not you is being discriminated against. Are you for real with this one? It’s strange how gay marriage threatens the sanctity of straight marriage but sham marriages to keep up appearances don’t. Quite.
“Yes, I realize that this is odd back-door logic, but you see my point.”
No I don’t.
“They don’t want just the couples’ rights. They want the whole tamale, title of marriage and all.”
Why are people hung up what we call the legal union between two people? It makes no sense. Let’s call all of these unions Civil Unions. Or Tamales even! Why not give them the damn tamale? Why is marriage a tamale? I’ve always felt it was more of a kit and kaboodle type of thing.
“so when gay rights activists want to pursue actual rights, let me know.”
Like all the rights that would be extended to them if they were allowed to marry?
In thirty years, the only thing people will be discussing is the embarrassing process of removing these trite and bigoted amendments from state constitutions. People under 30 are in favor of gay marriage and the Republicans recently lost the under 30 vote in the 2008 election by a 2-1 margin. MLK said the arc of the universe bends towards justice. It may also be trending toward the end of social conservatives dominating the GOP. That would be quite refreshing.
“That gay person can’t marry a man, but I can’t do it either.”
Using this logic, the old practice of forcing left-handed people to write with their right hand was not unfair or cruel, since right-handed people were “forced” to do the same. Your weak arguments simply don’t make sense.
The author attempted to appeal to the basest of human emotions, self-aggrandizement and fear.
First, the author ought to read Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1. If he did, then he would know that the U.S. Supreme Court defined the right to marry someone of their own choosing was a fundamental human right. In that case, supporters of misogyny laws which banned interracial marriage were told to pack up their hate and take it elsewhere. We are about to tell opponents of gay marriage the same thing. The reality is that the author employs many of the same arguments which were used by segregationists and opponents of inter-racial marriage. But how are we to do an unprecedented thing like extend marriage to two men or two women?! If we wished to defend traditional marriage, I would humbly request that we restrict marriage to people of the same gender, race, social class, and economic standing. Come to think of it, why not bring back arranged marriages? That’s really biblical!
Second, the author claims to never have heard of a right which required either fees or prerequisite activities. Perhaps he should turn to the second amendment. Is gun ownership really a right if it requires you to fill out a gun license application, pay a fee for the application, and pay for a gun? Shouldn’t the government give you a gun with no questions asked?
Third, the author assumes that he somehow has a right to vote on someone else’s rights. This is wrong, unjust, and anti-democratic. The essential function of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to defend the rights of the minorities against the whims of the majority. Why not pass a proposition which restricts religious practice to the “traditional” American religion of protestant Christianity? That way, all Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc. would be forced to abstain from practicing their religion. Appeals to tradition never work. The individual’s choice to practice any religion they chose is defended by the first amendment just as the individual’s right to marry whomever they chose is defended by the equal protection clause of the 14th and 5th amendments and the Constitution’s purpose of defending liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Fourth, the author decries homosexuals’ push for “the whole tamale.” In making such an argument, the author betrays his prejudices. He tacitly wishes for homosexuals to remain second class citizens. Last time I checked, the law is not something that can treat citizens differently based on sexual orientation. Firing someone from the workplace is actionable in federal court for a reason! The “separate but equal” argument behind civil unions is inherently flawed because the court has already stated that separate but equal is inherently unequal (Brown v. Board of Education).
Fifth, as to the author’s argument that gay marriage is not an “actual right,” the Supreme Court would disagree with him. Can anyone say how the pursuit of happiness could be furthered any better than by expanding the love, stability, and affection inherent in the institution of marriage? The right for an individual to marry someone of their own choosing is a fundamental right in the United States.
Probably one of the worst articles I have ever read in the hatchet. The logic is absolutely awful.
“That gay person can’t marry a man, but I can’t do it either.”
I actually laughed when I read this quote, because of its stupidity. Maybe the author is hiding something about himself, but unless he is gay, he would not want to marry a man. As someone said before, they used to force left-handed people to write with their right hands.
Obviously the author believes that being gay is a choice, because if not, he would have recognized that a gay person cannot marry of women (unless he thinks of guys during. . . ). I believe most people that believe being gay is a choice either don’t understand homosexuality, or are in the closet themselves because they made the “choice” to live as heterosexuals even though they are actually gay.
Overall, this is not journalism, this is stupidity at its best and the hatchet should be ashamed for posting such an obviously dumb article.
This article is entirely absurd. Mr. Clark should abide by the old addage, often attributed to his fellow Republican, Abraham Lincoln: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak(in this case editorialize) and remove all doubt.” I’m sure President Lincoln was a bit more selective about those persons on the invite list to his grand old party, though.
To be entirely honest, I, like many gay men, for reasons which are many and debatable, really have no plans of marriage now or ever. I can barely commit to an outfit for a full twenty-four hour day. It is not the wedding bells, matching Ralph Lauren tuxedos (a must), or miniature versions of my all-important self and my hubby atop nothing less than the most delicious mound of cake known to man for which I long. It is the fundamental recognition of my relationships, numerous and fleeting as they may be, which I crave. And regardless of Mr. Clark and his self-deceptive compatriots, I will have that.
I think that the problem with this point of view is it completely neglects to look into the legal history of the right to marry. The fact is that there are a number of cases from the Supreme Court that rule that marriage is, in fact, a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution (see Loving v. Virginia, Skinner v. Oklahoma, and Zablocki v. Redhail). The issue at hand is not whether or not all persons have a fundamental right to marry, because they do. The issue at hand is the definition of marriage and whether or not it is legal to keep that definition narrow enough to exclude the gay community. The author of this commentary comes from an uninformed point of view. He makes the case that it is a cultural issue, regrettably inferring that a majority of voters some how has the power to take away the consitutional rights of individuals. The right to marriage is constitutional, it is not meant for a ballot initiative or for the states to individually decide upon. The issue of gay marriage will end up at the Supreme Court, and if history tells us anything, those opposing gay marriage today will soon be on the wrong side of history.
Quite frankly, I’ve never read such a self-righteous piece of bigotry in a semi-reputable paper in my entire life. The same base logic that you are using is the EXACT same logic used during the civil rights movement to prevent interracial marriage. Statements like “well, they have the right to marry another black person just like I have the right to marry another white person” would fit in perfectly with this article. Change is NEVER comfortable. If we had waited for the entire country to be comfortable with it, we would never have struck down segregation, allowed inter-racial marriage, end slavery, or even destroy fascism in the world. I find this article reprehensable, your arguments flawed, and your sentiment dated. There will be gay marriage in this country. Maybe not today, not next week, maybe not even in the next decade. I can promise you this much – history will look back on you and your attitude in the same way as George Wallace is viewed today. Congrats you bigot.
This argument is eerily similar to the “separate but equal’ argument from Plessy v. Ferguson. “White people can’t drink at black fountains just as black fountains can’t drink from white fountains, so it’s fair!”
Unreal.
Andrew Clark, I expected better from you.
Taking your logic the following would be fair…
If the State of California stated that all writing must be done with the right hand, it would be legally and constituional since all people have the possibility to write with their right hand. Regardless of the fact 7% of the population is biologically pre-disposed to write with their left, all people supposedly have equal access to writing.
This logical progression is laughable, as is your argument.
We must not forget that the California courts ruled marriage to be a constitutional right for every man and woman regardless if they are gay, lesbian, or straight. Proposition 8 stripped away a constitutional right from people. The vote did not say they could not have the right — it TOOK it away. A majority vote on Proposition 8 should not matter either. The constitution’s purpose is to project citizens (whether they are part of a majority or minority) and grant them rights. A mere majority vote should not have the right to alter a state’s constitution. This would be tantamount to a state’s population overwhelming voting to outlaw guns. That majority vote would defy constitutional right would be wrong. Just like this majority vote.
Also, this is simply a case of civil rights. Being gay is not a choice. I highly doubt gays and lesbians wake up one day and decide “Hey! It would sure be fun have to not be able marry, reproduce naturally with my loved one, have people protest with signs that say ‘Fags burn in hell,’ looked down upon by most religions, and face spoken and unspoken discrimination on a recurring basis everyday. It’s not a choice.
Andrew Clark you’re a baffling fool.
Actually, marriage is a fundamental right. (See Loving v. Virginia).
I’m writing to elaborate on a few thoughts that came to my head after reading Mr. Clark’s piece and a few of the comments that followed it.
First and foremost, the blatant dismissal of his opinion (and intellect), however poorly represented, is disturbing – particularly for students calling for understanding and an end to close-mindedness.
With that being said, marriage, as traditionally defined, is a fundamental right defined in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The most translated document in the world declares that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”. You cannot redefine important documents and then re-apply them to legal precedent as you see fit (Loving v. Virginia). With this, “Human Rights” argument seems weak.
There is no reason to deny homosexuals any of the rights or financial responsibilities granted under the law. I don’t think anyone is arguing for this. Marriage on the other hand is traditionally a tenant of the religious establishment.
In conclusion, people who disagree with you are not hateful, ignorant, stupid, antagonistic, or spiteful. The same America you’re trying to change and mold is the one that protects our right to disagree with you; let’s act like we cherish this right, despite our differences.
That’s a lot of words to say you’re homophobic.
How about noticing that gay people are exactly like straight people, only they want to marry each other, not who you and Big Brother want them to? You should be ashamed to call yourself a Republican and be so fiercely defensive of a policy that uses government to take away the rights of private citizens!
Your circular logic is dumbfounding.
You say that because it is “couples” that are asking for rights then it doesn’t live up to the struggles of individuals who are asking for rights. How about this? Just look at it as two individuals.
And last time I checked it costs money to be born. I would call that a fundamental right. “The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” So the fact that you have to pay for a marriage license is a red herring when you talk about having to pay for fundamental rights.
Plus, you mention that you theoretically could marry a male yourself because nothing in the code specifies that it’s strictly for heterosexuals and against homosexuals. I’ve got an idea. Go ahead, try to marry a male, let’s see how far you get!!!
Also, your facts are incorrect. There is no longer a blood test required in California to get married. When you get facts wrong, the entire rest of your article is suspect.
Let’s analyze marriage laws in the United States. Each state has its own law codes on marriage, each with requirements and restrictions. In California, the law states that anyone can get married, so long as the partner is someone of the same race and above the age of 16. A marriage fee of about $40 and a blood test for HIV are required. There is no mention that this law does not apply to whites or that it only applies to blacks. So theoretically, a black person and I have the exact same right under California law: We can marry someone of the same race who is older than 16 if we pay 40 bucks and get tested for HIV. That black person can’t marry a white, but I can’t [marry a black] either. So am I being discriminated against? Is he?
just a couple of corrections:
1) california does not require a blood test
2) the legal age to marry is not 16, it’s 18
3) the cost ranges from $45-$90 depending on which county you get married in
I supported Prop 8 and for both religious and non-religious reasons. While the article may not have been the most well written, an article of this type needed to be printed. I feel like the Hatchet is disgustingly one-sided with only a few token conservative pieces.
I personally loved this video btw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng
MMMM Tolerance! Two way street? Maybe?
I’m coming out of the closet: As a Californian, I voted yes on Proposition 8 to ban interracial marriage. Not because of religious reasons and not because the Bible tells me to – rather, for entirely secular reasons. I don’t think interracial marriage is something that California or the United States needs to pursue.
First of all, although supporters of interracial marriage would like you think it, this “struggle” is not at all equivalent with the oppressive civil rights wars of the 1950s and ’60s. The 1964 Civil Rights Act gave individual human beings of all colors the fundamental human rights to equality that our Creator endowed to all of us upon birth. In contrast, the interracial marriage movement is seeking rights for “couples,” a vague societal concept that is formed much later in life and easily made or broken.
Anti-discrimination laws in the workplace and laws that protect individual blacks against discrimination based on their skin colour are one thing. Pushing to legalize interracial marriage and the rights of couples is quite new and quite another thing.
Let’s analyze marriage laws in the United States. Each state has its own law codes on marriage, each with requirements and restrictions. In California, the law states that anyone can get married, so long as the partner is someone of the same colour and above the age of 16. A marriage fee of about $40 and a blood test for HIV are required. There is no mention that this law does not apply to blacks or that it only applies to whites. So theoretically, a black person and I have the exact same right under California law: We can marry someone of the same colour who is older than 16 if we pay 40 bucks and get tested for HIV. That black person can’t marry someone of a different skin colour, but I can’t do it either. So am I being discriminated against? Is he?
Yes, I realize that this is odd back-door logic, but you see my point. The interracial marriage movement wants to frame this issue as an oppressive struggle for freedom and equality and an end to discrimination, particularly that there is a fundamental human right to marriage. That’s simply not true. If it is, it’s the first fundamental right I’ve heard of that requires a $40 fee and a blood test.
It seems the issue comes down to the benefits that couples are provided. Last week, one GW columnist said that 1,138 federal rights are given to legally married couples. Again, interracial marriage activists cite this as proof of discrimination and hate. Because of its emotional trigger, the one you most often hear is probably the right of couples to hospital visitation. How can you be against that? Many of these rights, however, are simply inherent in a big-government tax system that treats couples as financial entities, hardly the work of hateful discrimination.
If interracial couples want these couples-based legal loopholes, I have little problem with them having them. I’m sure a ballot initiative that granted interracial partners the right to hospital visitation would pass in any state.
But that, unfortunately, is not in question right now. They don’t want just the couples’ rights. They want the whole tamale, title of marriage and all. It’s an aggressive push on society to take the debate out of the legal realm and into the realm of history, tradition, sexual taboo, recognition and everything else that the title of a “marriage” would uncomfortably force on the rest of the population. It turns from a noble fight against discrimination to a fight of cultural politics. And it’s simply not necessary right now.
So when interracial rights activists want to pursue actual rights, let me know. Until then, I’ll be voting yes to ban interracial marriage.
Andrew,
While I understand your need to rationalize everything the Republic party does, your logic is stupid to say the least, and your article is homophobic and very bad journalism.
What would you do if someone in your family was gay, (or is that not possible because being gay is a choice nobody in your family would make?). The fact is being gay is not a choice and marriage is a fundamental right (Loving vs. Virginia).
The main reason that people voted against prop 8 was because of religious reasons, polls show that. So your attempt to make a “secular” argument didn’t make sense, because there is no valid argument against gay marriage, unless you consider “separate but equal” a good idea.
The fact is, 50% of teenagers who commit suicide in this country are gay. For a population that makes up less than 10% of the population, that is huge. Telling people that they are second class citizens and are not entitled to the same rights as you is discrimination, no matter how crazy your logic is (and yours was crazy “back-door logic”).
So please, Andrew, what if you were gay (although you might be and just be a self-hating gay), would you still be arguing this point. Or if you had a gay brother, would you tell him he can’t get married. Or if you were adopted by a gay couple, would you not want them to have the same rights as everyone else. This is an emotional issue, because it affects people to the core of their souls, to tell anyone they cannot have the same rights because of an inborn trait, is emotional.
Separate but equal IS discrimination.
Full response here: http://www.thecolonialist.com/2008/11/a-special-comment/
This opinion piece is terrible.
While I agree that differing opinions should be present in the Hatchet, is this the best argument you could get for Prop 8? There had to have been a more intelligent and cogent way to express an argument against gay marriage.
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Worst article I have ever seen in the hatchet, by far. I am not even going to get into the specifics. The author is stretching to make an argument against gay marriage.
The hatchet is awful. What if I wrote an article about how I disagreed with interracial marriage, would that be posted?
In response to Andrew Clark’s opinion piece on November 17, 2008, “I voted ‘yes’ on prop 8,” Mr. Clark’s argument both lacked a soundly rational basis and his assertions were insulting to the millions of us who are simply seeking equal rights under the law. I have no problem with conservatives or others of any political ideology arguing against gay marriage based on legal reasons, although such legal reasoning is usually murky at best. I do have a problem with anyone asserting that the vote two weeks ago by the people of California was anything but an affront to those of us in the gay community, and an illegal one at that.
To Mr. Clark’s first point, that the fight for gay marriage rights is not a civil rights struggle, he is correct in stating that it is not the same as the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Simply because it is not the same struggle, does not mean it is not a battle for civil rights. A century of Jim Crow laws made blacks second class citizens in the United States. For the duration of our history as human beings, gays have been second class citizens. Marriage, which is a legal institution that bestows certain rights, is a cherished right that is a fundamental part of modern society. To deny a fundamental right to any group of people is the legal equivalent of the government saying “you are less of a person than others.”
Clark’s core argument is incomprehensible. He asserts that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, or those defining marriage as between a man and a woman, are not discriminatory because, technically, a gay man is fully entitled to marry a woman, and straight men are equally prohibited from marrying other men. This is the equivalent of saying, circa 1960, that a black man living in a state that prohibited interracial marriage was not being discriminated against because he had a full right to marry a black woman, or somehow change his skin color in order to marry a white woman. This goes back to the underlying argument of the gay rights debate: is it a choice? No, it categorically is not. And nobody should be forced by the law to act contrary to who they are as a person.
Yes, Mr. Clark is correct in stating that, technically, I am free to marry a woman. But just as any heterosexual American has the freedom to marry whomever he or she loves, I deserve that same right. He asserts that marriage is not a fundamental human right. Some would argue it is, some would argue it is not. Regardless, it is a legal right that all 50 states grant to heterosexuals and that 48 deny to homosexuals, thus creating second class citizens.
He says that “marriage” – the word and the institution – being available to all citizens of the United States engaged in a loving relationship, would be an “aggressive push…uncomfortable force[d] on the rest of the population.” I cannot dispute that for much of the country it indeed would be uncomfortable. We do not make laws based on popular opinion nor do we make them based on how comfortable they may or may not make certain segments of society. Fifty years ago the majority of the nation was opposed to school integration and opposed to interracial marriage. They were uncomfortable with the idea. The country got over it, the country moved on, and a man born to interracial parents was just elected President of the United States. Beat that with a stick.
In my view, gay marriage is already legal in the United States. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states that “Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state…” The states of Massachusetts and Connecticut have legalized same-sex marriage, and despite the unconstitutional and Orwellian-named Defense of Marriage Act, every other state is obligated to recognize those marriages, and I anticipate will be in the near future. Even if one disagrees with my interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 2 provides that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Two states (formerly three) provide for same-sex marriage as a “privilege” – and every other state should be obligated to provide the same.
Gay marriage, among other rights for the GLBT community, is the fundamental civil rights issue of our day. Members of our community are among the few remaining minority groups for whom it is not only socially acceptable – in some areas encouraged – to ridicule, but also against whom it is still fully legal to discriminate. We are pursuing actual rights, and it is part of an ongoing struggle to ensure that this country I love and serve, declares that I indeed am equal under the law to you, and that includes my relationships.
Your logic does not make sense and this is very similar to the Civil Rights Era of the 50s and 60s.
The paragraph that is followed with you saying something about how your logic is backward but we get your point is particularly flawed by fallacies in logic.
The part, where the author admits that his reasoning sucks, is funny. He should’ve listened to himself.
Is anyone else aware that the editorial section of a paper is completely autonomous from the news section of the paper? The Hatchet news and Hatchet opinions columns are two different entities…let’s not group them together when making accusations. However, I agree that the article hardly makes a logical argument and I would be ashamed to have this article to be published under my name.
This article is an affront to any fundamental sense of logic, decency, or common sense. The author seeks to suggest that laws banning gays and lesbians from marrying are NOT particularly targeted at gays and lesbians–apparently ALL Americans are affected! Any sentient person who pauses for a moment to reflect on the inanity of this logic will also realize its callousness.
The fact that heterosexual marriage is a so-called “tradition” is not a valid reason for supporting a discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage. Slavery was a “tradition;” Jim Crow was a “tradition;” anti-miscegenation laws were “tradition.” This nation’s history shows that, time and again, discrimination is defended in the guise of “traditional civilization,” or what’s “natural.” We need to move away from making these normative value judgments as a society when they impinge on the rights of the individual.
The anti-gay rights movement showed its true colors in this past election–it’s not true that their only gripe is with “redefining” marriage. In Arkansas, a law was passed that, in an eerie reminiscence of Jim Crow, banned adoption for those couples who aren’t married. Of course, gay marriage also happens to be statutorily banned in the state of Arkansas, and it is widely-known that the law was intended to illegalize gay adoption. The movement behind Prop 8 and other measures like it is just plain mean-spirited.
Join this forum if you want a good debate on gay marriage.
http://iamtan.com/showthread.php?t=70120
At the end of the day, no LEGAL argument against gay marriage holds water. WHY should the state treat homosexuals differently? There is no reason.
Very brave young man, I applaud him. Everybody else, search your conscience… please.
Why do heterosexuals feel the need to censure and criticize the homosexual community. Since when are straights superior to gays? This is a classic case of majority discrimination. Leave religion and so-called morality out of it– don’t kid yourselves. Gay marriage makes you uncomfortable and you feel that, as the dominant group, you should be able to stop it. Fine, that’s your opinion but please at least be honest about it.
Homosexuality is not a choice, it is natural, it is the way that people are born.
A Homosexual loving couple should be able to have the same legislative rights as any other couple.
If you don’t believe this then you are ignorant, and frankly, homophobic.
George Wash U’s sophmore’s Andrew Clark’s article favoring Californicate’s Prop 8 is incomprehensible, SOPHOMORIC (pun intended) drivel. I am educated, spent a bit of time at a university studying literature, and I have rarely read such inarticulate, convoluted crap by someone who is presumably educated. Andrew, you really need to get a grip….
First of all, you don’t think through your co-called ideas. For instance, you write:
“The 1964 Civil Rights Act gave individual human beings of all colors the fundamental human rights to equality that our Creator endowed to all of us upon birth. In contrast, the gay marriage movement is seeking rights for “couples,” a vague societal concept that is formed much later in life and easily made or broken.”
Andrew, you write that the Civil Rights Act gave “the fundamental human rights to equality that our Creator endowed to all of us upon birth.” Parsing your convoluted, tautological baby talk is a chore. How can a civil statute give rights that were already endowed…? No, dear, the statute made that G-d given right legally enforceable — by providing legal sanctions if violated. The statute does not “give” any rights as the rights are inherent. That is part of the reason why you don’t understand GAY rights. You have no clear idea of what rights are to begin with.
BTW, I am a member of the Log Cabin Republican Club. And as a Republican…shame on you, you silly fop.
Next: You claim that gays are “seeking rights for couples….” You are one very confused kid. Married couples DO have rights. Did you mean that gays are seeking the SAME rights for their relationships? WHOOPS! And then you write some incomprehensible drivel about the relationship easily being broken up later in life or something. I don’t know. Stand in front of a mirror and recite it. Maybe you can make sense of it. No one else can. You need to take a beginning writing class, dude.
Now let me tell you something, you insolent brat. Without MARRIAGE, gays do not have the right not to testify against a spouse. As pointed out by other writers, while there are many couples that procreate, there are many who do not. Many marriages are made late in life solely for companionship and to obtain the very “rights” of couples you seem to protest on some unfathomable basis. In fact, I know one STRAIGHT couple that married only because one spouse is ill and they want to protect their property when the ill spouse dies. They never had any children. As one of the state supreme courts pointed out, the institution of marriage is also based on property rights. Since gays have property rights, ergo, they have a right to marry.
Another point, I don’t want to call you a thief but I pay more taxes than you make. You’re a peasant compared to me. If I pay for the divorce courts, then I have a right of access to them as does any other gay male or lesbian out there. Period. So get your damned hand out of pocket. You have no right to my money if I don’t get the same rights: No taxation without representation, Mr. Republican.
You’re an insolent, surly, disrespectful, arrogant, stuck on yourself, not-so-smart, spoiled brat, Andrew. You need to grow up, get over yourself — and your homophobia, and learn to respect other people. Other than that, you’re still cute.