The Dartmouth Beacon

YES:

The debate in America today over gay marriage misses several points which I think should be discussed more. The heart of the debate is about who should define marriage: legislative bodies, mayors, governors, or judges, etc. Forgetting that this argument is just a cover for social conservatives who are doing anything they can to restrict “immoral” behavior, let us pretend for a minute that the issue really is which agency should be defining marriage. A lot is said about marriage being an important social institution whose fate is desperately important to what America stands for. But America is about freedom and individualism, not preserving Western culture or Judeo-Christian traditions! Can you think of an institution more personal than marriage? I can’t. The nature of marriage should be decided solely by the individuals involved. Anything else is a violation of their freedom by the government.

Opponents of gay marriage claim that democracy is being hijacked by judges. They say that legislatures should be defining marriage. Well, activist judges have been around for a long time, and have committed many heinous acts that have thwarted the will of the people, such as Brown v. Board of Education. No single Southern state would have ended segregation in schools or anywhere else by the “democratic” proceedings of its legislature. Nevertheless, segregation was wrong then, just as limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is wrong now. The Fourteenth Amendment is a protection against the majoritarian acts of state legislatures; it took judges to begin rolling back segregation and racism. Judges will have to do the same in our time until this form of bigotry passes away, as institutional racism did, as is inevitable in a progressive society.

by ADAM CHMELYNSKI ‘08

NO:

Nowadays anyone who speaks out against homosexual marriage is considered a bigot or intolerant. Nothing could be further from the truth. The belief that same-sex unions are as valid as natural, heterosexual relationships is fundamentally flawed, based on a misunderstanding of human nature.

First, the foundation and root purpose of marriage is and always has been reproduction. This is a natural human instinct that even so-called “primitive” societies practice. Homosexual marriage, however, fails this test. Such a union is prohibited by human anatomy, so opposing gay marriage is merely upholding an unchangeable law of nature. Proponents of homosexual union would have us believe that such relationships are a natural and perfectly honorable thing, but this is simply untrue.

Secondly, the feminist would have you believe that a woman can do everything a man can do, but the fact remains that men and women are different mentally and in physiology and thus are not interchangeable. Men, quite simply, do not make good mothers (And vice-versa). We cannot allow ourselves to believe this falsehood simply because it is socially acceptable to do so.

Thirdly, we must consider the value of tradition. While there is much to be said for progress and weeding out unfavorable practices, we must also consider why things are the way they are. Heterosexual marriage is not a social construction—it is a fundamental tenant of every civilized society in existence. This is because, quite simply, heterosexual union works. Men and women are tailored, whether by evolution or otherwise, to complement each other’s strengths in a marital relationship. This can no more be changed by an act of Congress or a judge than can the Law of Gravity. Homosexual union ought to be opposed because it is unnatural and illogical, not because of bigotry towards those who would practice it.

By JOHN WILLIAMSON '08