"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'" Times must have been far simpler back in 1967 when Chief Justice Warren so eloquently and simply ended centuries of racial bias and hatred by granting whites and blacks the right to marry.
Unfortunately times were not simple. In terms regarded as disgusting today opponents to inter-racial marriage called it, "repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit." They attacked the notion as "abhorrent and repugnant...subversive to social peace...destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately," they extolled, "this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict." (Sen. Seaborn Roddenberry)
In his time Chief Justice Warren brought some semblance of justice to the 'sacred institution of marriage.' Still, today, the gay and lesbian community is facing quite the same vitriolic, illogical, and fear-based opposition to equal rights that African Americans did in those years when it was assumed that they were somehow less deserving of those most basic of liberties.
Opponents contend that allowing homosexuals the right to get marriage licenses would, "completely eliminate marriage as a privileged institution." (Sen. Rick Santorum) In fact, it has been alleged that "homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions' leads to 'totalitarianism, 'Nazism,' and 'communism.' (Sen. Alan Keyes). Certainly because of gay marriage "the very foundations of our society are in danger of being burned. The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society: the family unit." (Rep Bob Barr)And while many arguments are not nearly as extreme, they all fall back on one basic premise; homosexual unions pose a threat to the institution of marriage and to American society.
The homosexuals in the United States have thus been accused of being hedonist, communist Nazis a threat who pose a threat to the nation and to the family unit, and worst of all, we have been told that we are not equal to every other citizen in this nation.
Compromise?
Compromise we will not.
And neither shall history, for history itself has shown us its unwillingness to compromise with justice, such compromises with liberty always fail to stand the test of time. So shall history remember this period with the same tragic disgust now associated with the years that African Americans suffered a denial of their basic civil liberties.
It is interesting that in his column, Will Haun called the issue of gay marriage a stalemate. It is interesting because it is anything but. The truth is that times are changing and the regressive arguments of the radical right and even, unfortunately, the 'moderate' right are losing traction. A cursory look alone at their terms shows the baseless nature of their arguments.
The word marriage is used in these arguments as if the homosexual community were amassed outside some grandiose cathedral demanding to be wed underneath a massive cross... quite the contrary. Extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples is a licensing issue. What the republicans are doing is denying couples a contract which would legitimize their relationship in the eyes of the law (eyes which are supposed to be blind). How could one justify such a blatant injustice except to claim that the sky is falling full of fire and brimstone destroying families and angering a God who has already apparently punished gays by inflicting AIDS, hurricanes and terrorist attacks that have killed countless Americans without regard for sexual orientation. What God thinks of how we interact with those we love is between us and god, and it is highly presumptuous, of politicians in particular, to speak for him.
A simple re-framing of the issue easily exposes its absurdity; republicans want to keep homosexuals from obtaining a government issued license, they want to keep two adults from entering into a contract. The opponents to gay marriage know how absurd such a claim would be which is why they so effectively utilize double-talk, speaking of 'the institution of marriage' as a civil notion, but transmitting in the vocabulary a very deeply religious message. Still, the distinction must be made unquestionably clear: marriage in the religious context is completely different and distinct from marriage in the civil context.
There are other gaping holes in Will Haun's article on gay marriage. Will states that the laws that make traditional marriage a union between one man and one woman who love each other predate the Constitution and have been a part of "every civilized society for thousands of years." A quick look at the history of marriage, which involves polygamy, arranged marriages, and property agreements between families, indicates otherwise. Will also states that the ultimate goal of marriage is children. If this is the case, then we should also forbid the marriage of heterosexual couples who cannot or do not wish to have children.
These blatant factual inaccuracies in Will's article are not the saddest thing about his argument, it is in fact his willingness to compromise that should sadden any citizen of our great constitutional democracy. The United States, is built upon the very principle that civil rights are not to be compromised. Our fundamental rights, be them to obtain a license to hunt, to carry a firearm, to marry those whom we love should be no different than Will's. It may be easy to compromise or diminish the importance of the civil rights of others - to make them abstract and write them off, but that in no way makes it conscionable. This country has before attempted to allow "separate but equal" institutions or facilities as a way to couch bigotry. Eventually the will of the American people resolutely declare that any such denial of liberty would not be tolerated.
Liberty is not something that can be compromised. One is either equal, or they are not. By compromising on equality under the law, America would truly be disregarding its most sacred tradition and most venerable of core values.
It is only right that this country afford true equality to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered citizens. It is only right that liberty honor love in law and extend those rights which ensure both be fulfilled. It is only right that all Americans enjoy of this nation those freedoms from which it was so nobly conceived.
This debate will end.
And it will end with the checkmate of bigotry and the triumph of liberty.
Joseph Colarusso II, Undergraduate Senator Ashley Mushnick, AU College Democrats President Chris Sgro, Undergraduate Senate Speaker Kyle Taylor, Student Government President
