n Re: “Put a stop to false petition against gay marriage,” (page 6, Oct. 27)
It amazes me that Sarah Prager can talk about the petition by VoteOnMarriage.org as an “assault on the democratic process” when homosexual marriage came about in Massachusetts through an assault on the democratic process. A majority of Massachusetts’s citizens did not support homosexual marriage, yet the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made it legal.
Supporters of homosexual marriage often state that marriage is a “civil right.” If homosexual marriage were a civil right, one would think that blacks would then join in the fight for equality, but polls show that blacks largely oppose homosexual marriage. The civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson does not support homosexual marriage. The Black Ministerial Alliance even came to the State House to fully endorse the VoteOnMarriage.org campaign. Gay militants have hijacked the civil rights rhetoric used by blacks in order to make those who oppose gay marriage seem like heartless bigots.
Homosexuals, unlike African Americans when they were fighting for real civil rights, were never considered three-fifths of a person in the Constitution, never forced to sit in the back of the bus, etcetera. Marriage itself is not a civil right. However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that it is. Does that mean an uncle has the “right” to marry his niece? Shall polygamy now be legal? Where is the line to be drawn? Marriage is a millennia-old institution that has always been defined as the union between one man and one woman. To reverse this is to put at risk the basic foundation of human society, the family unit with one father and one mother.
To argue against homosexual marriage should not be misconstrued to mean one is homophobic or a radical Christian fundamentalist who believes gays will burn in hell. Supporting the family as has existed throughout human history is not necessarily a moral argument. To support a family structure that is conducive to bringing up healthy, well-adjusted children is not bigotry. Opposing homosexual “marriage” is not synonymous with opposing gays as people, nor is it synonymous with moral rejection of homosexuality.
Homosexual marriage supporters often argue that it only affects homosexuals, so no one else should care whether homosexuals marry or not. This argument is completely fallacious. How much of actual government policy has a direct effect on those who enact it, or those who oppose it? If a government allows for gay marriage, it is effectively saying that the people under that government support it as well. VoteOnMarriage.org is trying to allow the issue to be democratically voted upon by the people of Massachusetts to see whether they support gay marriage or not.
Supporting marriage as one man and one woman is a bipartisan effort. President Clinton signed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 (after a 85-14 vote in the Senate and overwhelming support in the House), which defined marriage as one man and one woman and said the federal government would not recognize same-sex marriages. Sen. John Kerry even expressed his opposition to gay marriage in the last presidential election and numerous Democrats in the State House support VoteOnMarriage.org.
The people of Massachusetts, rather than activist judges, should decide for themselves whether or not they will support gay marriage. And no, a citizens’ petition is not appropriate for a civil rights matter, but, as aforementioned, this is clearly not one.
Joe Mroszczyk President, BU College Republicans CAS ’07 London Internship Program
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
