STAFF EDIT: Allow homosexual marriages

Though essentially a formality, marriage also incites passionate opinions because it symbolizes a strong, often religious, commitment and confers legal benefits. In the next few months, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will decide whether marriage should be available for same sex couples in the state. Although unlikely, the court should rule in favor of gay marriages.

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders filed the suit on behalf of seven homosexual couples and argued that a ban is unconstitutional and unfairly discriminates. On the opposing side, the state Department of Health has declared the issue one pertaining to public health because of marriage’s links to procreation and child rearing, saying that household with a parent of each sex is the best situation.

The state’s argument is both ludicrous and irrelevant. The best situation for raising children is a happy household. Children need loving homes and can thrive regardless of the sex of their parents. In most cases, having two mommies who love each other and their child is far superior to having a mother and father who fight constantly or get divorced.

However, gay marriage is not an issue of public health. Marriage does not necessarily correlate with producing children; rather, it is about a contract between two people. When two people love each other, they should have the opportunity to legally recognize their bond and receive the tax and health benefits that go with it.

Allowing homosexuals to marry will not affect the sanctity of anyone else’s marriage or the people who so adamantly oppose it. The Supreme Judicial Court can validate the commitment of gay couples and allow them to feel like any other citizens by ruling in favor of same-sex marriages. This will reduce the deeper distrust and fear of homosexuality still evident in our culture and promote a less discriminatory society.