“What is the world coming to” indeed. In response to Matthew Sullivan’s February 12th editorial, I won’t even address his question about judges’ right to legislate. I think the “Amendment must not pass” editorial (same issues) did a great job of pointing out that the issue here is ensuring the right of minorities, a power that should not be given to the people. Instead, I will speak to the overwhelming sense of homophobia in Mr. Sullivan’s letter. First of all, the fact that homosexuality was once thought to be a mental disorder is completely irrelevant when considering allowing gay marriages. It’s pretty well accepted these days that it’s not a mental disorder, and even so…since when are people with mental disorders not allowed to get married? This argument is also weak when we consider that there was a time not so long ago that interracial marriages were considered wrong and immoral. Hell, we even rationalized slavery with scripture. If these beliefs and misconceptions had never been questioned, this would be a very different country in terms of civil rights. Thank heavens for judges with the insight and courage to reevaluate the way we’ve been treating minorities and take such a “radical stance.” Secondly, I feel sorry for anyone whose parents got married simply for the purpose of procreation. I am blessed to have parents who entered into a loving and committed union 25 years ago. Through that bond, yes, they have created a family and community for four children – one of which was not brought into the family through procreation, incidentally. Heterosexual sex isn’t necessary to produce a healthy family, and any adoption agent or DCF social worker can tell you that it certainly doesn’t guarantee the creation of a healthy “bedrock of a family.” I don’t agree with Mr. Sullivan’s view that children of gay parents will be encouraged to be gay or that being raised with gay parents is “not right and not natural.” I do respect his right to hold that opinion, but I absolutely do not think that constitutional amendment should be based on public vote or opinion. Anyone sharing Mr. Sullivan’s opinion is free to not raise their child with homosexual parents. Until there is hard proof that such an upbringing is harmful, though, that right should not be taken away from gay couples who wish to have a family. I agree with Mr. Sullivan that marriage should “represent the highest bond” between two people, and I don’t see how that is violated if the couple is gay. The decision of four judges does not reduce marriage to “merely nothing.” The intents and motivations of the two people determine the integrity of a marriage, regardless of their genders.
Janelle Ziobro SAR ’05 617-285-0171