Wednesday, October 9, 1996
RESPONSE:
Equality called for in favor of same-sex marriage By Mike
Galant
I applaud the Daily Bruin for including many points of view
concerning the recently passed Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I
would like to comment on some of those opinions expressed in favor
of DOMA.
Pete Knight makes several statements to the effect that society
is clearly against same-sex marriages. He must mean that a MAJORITY
opposes same-sex marriages, since I’m part of society and I am in
FAVOR of same-sex marriages. The majority isn’t always right Â
just look at the 19th century South or World War II Germany.
Opinions are one thing, constitutional rights, such as life, love,
and the pursuit of happiness are something else.
Knight feels that the institution of marriage is under attack. I
agree that the institution of marriage is not as strong as it
should be, but the reasons for this have NOTHING to do with
homosexuality.
There are no marriages that would survive if only it weren’t for
that dratted homosexuality. Even in the tiny percentage of cases in
which a gay man or a lesbian is living a sham marriage out of shame
and denial, the marriage is doomed to failure from the start.
Furthermore, if gay and lesbian relationships were validated by
society, fewer such situations would arise in the first place, thus
freeing up single heterosexuals for the pool of potential
heterosexual spouses.
How can legal recognition of same-sex marriage possibly threaten
heterosexual marriages ? In reality, legal recognition of same-sex
marriages would strengthen the institution of marriage  gay
and lesbian monogamous relationships would be fortified due to
legal validation, and the amount of stable marriages would
increase. If Pete Knight really wants to protect marriage, he
should pass laws providing economic aid and counseling for married
couples, and he should also work on other issues that indirectly
impact the stability of marriage such as drug abuse and
education.
Tabitha Kazabrown believes that homosexuals are just like
everyone else except for the type of sex that they have. In some
ways she is right  we are just as productive (or
unproductive) as anyone else. We have feelings, we need love, we
eat, we sleep and we work.
We are different in that we are emotionally and sexually
oriented towards members of the same sex. Our sexual acts, for
those of us who are sexually active, are different in particulars
from heterosexual sexual acts.
However, the nature of sexual acts between two consenting
adults, which Kazabrown herself agrees should be legal, is only a
small part of our identity (and none at all for anyone who is not
sexually active). It therefore has nothing to do with our
performance on the job. If the only objection she feels she is
entitled to is towards behavior or lifestyle, how can she approve
of discrimination on the job? A gay or lesbian does not behave
sexually on the job. Someone who wears four nose rings is, although
in a very minor way, behaving in a way that might affect the
employee/client relationship  that person chooses to dress a
certain way, and the way they dress is not an INHERENT part of
their identity.
Since gays and lesbians do not have sex on the job, their
behavior is indistinguishable from that of heterosexuals and cannot
harm business. Of course, if the customers and/or coworkers are
bigots and find out that an employee has a homosexual ORIENTATION
(an inherent condition), this might affect business, but this has
nothing to do with behavior, since someone can be gay or lesbian
without having any sex at all.
The decision to fire gays and lesbians for being homosexual is
about their identity, not about their behavior, and Kazabrown is
either mistaken or trying to hide bigots’ true motives.
Gary Bauer correctly identifies many threats to the family such
as sexually-transmitted diseases and out-of-wedlock pregnancies,
among others.
These are all important issues, but what does homosexuality or
same-sex marriages have to do with any of this? And who is he to
decide what is normal ? If normal means a couple capable of
procreating, is he against sterile people getting married ?
None of the above-mentioned individuals really provides a good,
legal reason why same-sex marriages should not be legal or why they
could possibly be harmful to the rest of society. Some of the legal
benefits for marriages do cost the taxpayers money, but gays and
lesbians pay taxes, too, and married gays and lesbians should be
entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples.
Their unions pose no threat to anyone. People have the right to
oppose same-sex unions for religious reasons, but there is a
separation of church and state in this country, and this must be
respected. Hopefully, Hawaii will enlighten the rest of the country
in the near future so that gays and lesbians can advance one more
step away from being second-class citizens.
Mike Galant is a doctoral student in Romance Linguistics.