January 2005 Issue
Letters to the Editor
LettersOur readers respond.
I am writing in response to your column "Gay Marriage: A Fit For America?" I happened to come across a copy of the Beacon in my dorm's study lounge and I was surprised to find that your last section, Face-off, provided both the liberal as well as conservative point of view to the debate over gay marriage. Although repulsed by conservative journalism in general, I was surprisingly impressed by this kind of open mindedness considering that even liberal journalism would not include a conservative let alone moderate voice in their writings. However, as I read the two sides, I found dissatisfaction with both. The writer who was against gay marriage was literally the embodiment of patriarchal thinking, employing every age old argument that has been used to justify one form of oppression or another. The writer who stood for gay marriage was not very convincing and failed to explain exactly why any and every person should be a supporter and ally.
Let's start with Mr. Williamson's argument. Basically, he makes the claim that the sole purpose of marriage is that of reproduction and since homosexual partnership can not biologically achieve this end, their union therefore would be considered unnatural and should not be legally permitted. Furthermore, even if gay couples could produce offspring, naturally or artificially, motherhood and fatherhood are specific to the sexes and can not be substituted for. "Men, quite simply, do not make good mothers (and vice versa)...Men and women are tailored, whether by evolution or otherwise, to complement each other's strengths in a martial relationship." Mr. Williamson has failed to see that the all American nuclear family has changed drastically in the past fifty years. Almost thirty percent of households today are headed by single parents and in the past decade, same sex households as well as unmarried partner households have been on the rise. The reality is that heterosexual pairs are not the only ones capable of being parents and also that marriage is no longer a prerequisite to parenting. Couples, regardless of sexuality, do not need marriage in order to have children and certainly do not get married for that purpose. For some, marriage is about making a lifelong commitment to each other out of love and not about producing progeny. For others, it might not even be as binding as we tend to believe considering that over half of all marriages in the US today end in divorce.
My point is that Mr. Williamson's argument is extremely out of date. It is true that certain traditions hold considerable value in our society but even traditions change over time, including that of marriage. Marriages first began as a custom performed by the family and only much later were religious rituals and legal contracts incorporated. Its evolution over history is proof that it is in fact a social construction. If people can shape it, if those in power can decide who deserves the recognition of being married and who doesn't, then how is it anything but social construction? Patriarchs like Mr. Williamson have long been using arguments of tradition to mask institutions of power like that of marriage and pass them off to be "natural." However, anything natural is by definition unchanging and one only need to take a look outside of their conservative haven to realize that the world is constantly changing and in need of that change. Heterosexuality is a privilege and at present, it is an institution of power but it need not be oppressive. Homosexuality will exist whether or not the law allows it to and homosexual unions will persist despite homophobia. Gays are not demanding access to marriage because they seeking approval. FYI: they do not need your approval. The issue is largely one of rights, which brings me to Mr. Chmelynski's argument. He believes that the nature of marriage should be left to the individual since America is a nation founded on values of freedom and individuality. While I believe this to be true, I would rather emphasize that America is a nation of diversity and difference. To restrict, to attack or to alienate someone because of his or her difference creates the potential to do the same to anyone else for any form of difference. This is neither a liberal nor conservative point of view. It's simply what has happened in our society, the basis of racism, sexism, classism, and all the other discriminations and oppressions the human race has so brilliantly conjured up and have come to embrace. If we wish to maintain our identities and preserve diversity, then we all need to be allies to gays and support gay marriage, which is the recognition that they too are human and deserve human rights. You would think that after countless wars, genocide, slavery, apartheid, we would have realized by now that difference, when used to divide, is deadly. It is only when we accept and celebrate those differences when we will cease to live in an oppressive society and gay marriage is an example of such an act.
By AMY CHAN '06