David McRaney  |  Journalist

Why are we concerned with gay marriage

Those who would seek to allow homosexuals to wed are, according to a large portion of the United States, threatening the sanctity of marriage.

State after state has voted to ban same-sex marriage. I'm not sure what these people expect to happen if all the homosexuals in this country had their permission to join in wedlock, but looking at the arguments and emotions involved, I'm fairly certain that I live in a nation of ignorant, hateful idiots.

Of course, a group of people in America vehemently opposing the rights of another group of people isn't all that shocking.

Interracial marriage was prohibited by state laws in 1883, the constitutionality of which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pace v. Alabama. That decision was not overturned until the Supreme Court turned a case in 1967. At the time, 16 states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. It wasn't until November of 2000 Alabama finally repealed its ban on interracial marriage, and even then 40 percent of the people voted against the repeal.

Marriage suffers because it is both a legal institution and a religious one. The state considers it a binding legal agreement between two people and their local government. This entitles married individuals to certain rights and privileges along with placing certain obligations and penalties upon them. There is no religious connotation to all of this because we cannot allow our government to be led around by the nose by any one particular religion, and as we all know, different religions see marriage differently.

In modern Japan, about 30 percent of marriages are arranged, and incidentally they are statistically more successful than the other 70 percent of marriages precipitated by love. Arranged marriage has lost a lot of momentum since westernization, but throughout India and China, it is still quite common and accepted. In Rajasthan, India, people have their young girls ten and under, even babies, married away as part of the annual festival known as Akhai Teej. In Egypt, as in many cultures, some men pay other men for their daughters, the marriage is set and the girls, who are usually 12- to 15-years-old, are handed over. Some extremist Mormons in America are fond of polygamy. (Editor's Note: Some early leaders and members of the Mormon Church entered into plural marriages during the latter half of the nineteenth century. Church President Wilford Woodruff declared the practice should be discontinued in 1890. Members of the Church who enter into plural marriage today face Church disciplinary action, including excommunication.) Throughout Islam, a man is allowed up to four wives legally, and it is fair to say the women there are treated like commodities. Polyandry, or multiple husbands, is accepted in Nepal, Yunnan, Tibet and Zanskar.

So, the legal, government-defined, social meaning of marriage is a separate and singular concept separate unrelated to any one religion's view.

This is good.

In fact, in France and Russia two people must be legally married before being religiously married. The problem is a lot of people in America think the legal definition should specify marriage be between one man and one woman only - no exceptions. These people often cite without such a strict specification on what is allowed the very sanctity of marriage will be destroyed.

Guess what. There is no such thing as the sanctity of marriage in the United States.

In modern America we have trophy wives, "Who Wants to Marry My Dad", "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire", Brittany Spears married for 40 hours, Jessica Simpson's retarded union as a sitcom, wife-swapping reality programs, a 50 percent divorce rate, mail-order brides, marriage to gain citizenship, marriage under duress of pregnancy, goldiggers, marriage as a drunken mistake over the weekend in Vegas and, worst of all, wedding singers who perform "The Rose" every time I am forced to sit through the lighting of the unity candle.

If anyone is crapping on the concept of marriage, it's heterosexuals.

The issue at stake here is not sanctity, or holiness. In America there are 1,049 laws that directly affect an individual based on whether or not he or she is married. And, according to the Fourteenth Amendment, rights conferred to one person cannot be refused to another.

It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Also, what about those who aren't exactly male or female like hermaphrodites, transgenders, xxy- and xxx-chromosomed people?

I'm of the opinion marriage has never been an institution soaked in goodness. Sure, it's been considered holy and godly and sacred, but that's the problem with this whole broken argument - it isn't. No one wants to admit it fails as much as it succeeds.

People should be allowed to consider marriage as whatever they choose to, and the state should allow those people to be joined in a legal union that has nothing to do with said beliefs.

If two men or two women want to get married, who cares? I have male, heterosexual friends living together who would probably jump at a tax break.

I guarantee heterosexuals will still copulate, have babies and choose to get married regardless of what gay people do.

Originally published in The Student Printz on March 16, 2006