At the risk of getting dragged down into yet another endless and vitriolic ‘Free Press Debate,’ I have to respond to Aaron Camire’s letter (‘People should consider indirect effects of marriage ruling,’ Nov. 20, 10) not because I think that the ideas Camire expresses are uncommonly offensive, but because he raises the most commonly heard arguments against gay marriage and he expresses them in clear terms.

First, Camire raises the concern that opening the institution of marriage to same-sex couples will open the floodgates to all kinds of ‘deviant behavior,’ specifically to incest and pedophilia. In doing so, he fails to recognize the distinction between homosexuality and sexual abuse. In cases of incest and pedophilia, one ‘partner’ is legally unable to consent. Any sexual activity that takes place between close relatives or between an adult and a child is considered abusive under law. Same-sex partnerships, however, are not any more abusive than heterosexual unions. When two consenting adults love each other and have built a strong, supportive and healthy relationship over time, that relationship deserves respect and recognition, regardless of the genders of the people involved.

Camire attempts to place homosexuality and sexual abuse in the same category by describing all of these behaviors as ‘statistical deviancy,’ meaning that fewer people engage in these acts than do not. Camire’s use of this phrase subtly reflects an undercurrent in American society that has been present since Alexis De Tocqueville wrote his seminal work ‘Democracy in America.’ In the 1830s, Tocquville described the phenomenon of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ in short, the idea that when power in concentrated in the hands of a majority, individuals who disagree with the prevailing social conventions are completely disenfranchised. Anything that lies beyond the boundaries of the mainstream becomes ‘wrong.’

This, of course, still implies that homosexuality is a choice. While Camire (along with most heterosexual Americans) accepts this as a basic assumption, the question is far from settled. I won’t fully explore the issue here, but it is important to consider when thinking about issues of gay marriage.

It also seems important to note that marriage is more than a social symbol; it is a legal status. Camire’s insistence that nobody looks down on homosexuals because they can’t marry is beside the point. The bottom line is that it is important to the integrity of a family that both parents have child custody, ensuring stability for their children, and that spouses can visit one another in the hospital. Legalizing gay marriage strengthens families that already exist outside of the protection of family law.

Of all the issues raised by Camire, however, I feel that the most important one to address is the worry that redefining marriage will in some way cause it to mean less. He is deeply concerned about the idea of ‘changing thousands of years of Western tradition’ to meet current ideas about tolerance and equality. This argument appears over and over again, in opinion pieces and letters to the editor all over the country. And ultimately, it’s about fear of change. Camire writes about the difficulties of ‘controlling a social revolution,’ implying that the gay rights movement is a social revolution that must be controlled.

There are times, however, when a society is ripe for change. The Civil Rights Movement took place in such a time, and it seems that American society is evolving once again, this time to embrace same-sex marriage. As American citizens of this age, we can either dig our heels into the ground and resist the change or we can look at gender and marriage, not in terms of what they have always been, but in terms of what they could potentially be.

Kelilah Miller CAS ’05