In a recent letter to the editor, a student made the comment
that she had “yet to read a compelling opinion for why gays
should not be allowed to marry” (“Support gays’
right to marry,” Feb. 20). If the only thing she was reading
was the Daily Bruin, it is easy to understand the ignorance
concerning the varied arguments for and against allowing gays to
marry.
First, traditionalists who oppose what San Francisco Mayor Gavin
Newsom is doing, apart from the moral equation, appeal to the idea
of rule of law. In defying the 2000 state referendum which defined
marriage as being between a man and a woman, Newsom essentially has
taken the law into his own hands. If a conservative mayor started
handing out illegal automatic assault rifles while citing the right
to bear arms, liberals who now support what Newsom is doing would
be up in arms, no pun intended. The first thing Newsom should have
done was file a lawsuit against the state challenging the law, not
breaking it repeatedly before finally going to court. When elected
officials start breaking laws they have sworn to uphold, the very
essence of our society breaks apart.
Second, redefining marriage on civil rights grounds represents a
real threat to monogamy itself. A recent editorial in The Bruin
stated that polygamy “(does) not deserve discussion”
(“Gays deserve equality, right to marry,” Feb. 18).
Ignoring the issues does not make them go away. Many people
recognize the relationship between legalized gay marriage and
polygamy. As gay leftist columnist Richard Goldstein pointed out
about polygamy and gay rights, “our fates are entwined in
fundamental ways.” Stephen Clark, the legal director of the
Utah American Civil Liberties Union, has said, “Talking to
Utah’s polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who
really want the right to live their lives.” If the law
shouldn’t discriminate between two consenting adults, why
should the law discriminate against three or 20 adults who would
argue their love for each other is just as profound as heterosexual
and gay couples?
Legal polygamy would jeopardize the foundation of marriage as a
monogamous relationship, and that is why polygamy has historically
been treated in the West as an offense against society itself. Only
a few weeks ago legalized marriage of gays seemed a long shot, so
why should polygamy not be considered as a possibility now? It
seems that ever since the Tom Green trial in 2001, the national
polygamy lobby has been picking up momentum, and has, in fact,
learned many of its lessons from the gay marriage movement. It is
only a few polygamy pride parades and a judicial ruling away before
it becomes legal.
Thirdly (dove tailing off of the second rationale),
traditionalists argue that this threat to monogamy is a threat to
the fabric of the nation. Common sense, the tradition of the ages
and empirical data emphatically show that children need mothers and
fathers. A study by Child Trends, for example, found its research
“clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for
children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family
headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried
mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships
face higher risks of poor outcomes. … There is thus value for
children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological
parents.” The legalization of gay marriage, traditionalists
argue, will contribute to the breakdown of the traditional home.
This could lead to an increase in promiscuity, poverty and crime at
the expense of future generations of children.
In conclusion, whether one agrees or disagrees with the rights
of gays to marry, there are certainly compelling arguments against
it. The idea of federalism and the rule of law, the threat to
monogamy in general, and the subsequent toll it will take on future
generations are just a few of these arguments.
Partridge is a fourth-year history student.