By Aaron M. Rodriguez
On April 6th, 2009, opinion columnist Scott Milfred from the Wisconsin State Journal wrote a piece entitled, “Iowa’s Pleasant Surprise – State High Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage .” In his article, Milfred states that the more people who get to know gays and lesbians, the more they begin to understand they are pretty much the same as everyone else – they love their partners, contribute to society, and deserve the same right to pursue happiness - AKA they deserve gay marriage. People who share Milfred's view tend to be social and political liberals.
On the flipside, there are two types of people that oppose gay marriage. First, there are the religious devotees who try their best to live productive spiritual lives, to love their neighbor as themselves, and to adhere to the proper precepts ratified by their beloved holy writ. They view homosexuals as good people with unfortunate sinful inclinations. They say, "We all know some good people that have sinful inclinations to lust, hate, or gossip, but we love them as God has instructed us to do. We are all sinners that fall short of God's perfect mark of righteousness. Homosexuals are no different. They need our love and support, but like with everyone else, we will call them out when they act upon those inclinations. We oppose gay marriage because endorsing it would be a contradiction to our faith and fidelity to the scriptures – in particular, our Pauline epistles."
The second sort is the political conservative. The political conservative resists changes in long standing traditions or policies unless it can be demonstrated with clarity and concision that such changes are necessary for the improved function of society. He opposes gay marriage because the proposal, if enacted, would widen the definition of marriage – an institution that has stood the test of time and proved to be essential in the stability of families for thousands of years. He does not want to see the definition of marriage change because it would remove safeguards that resist forces that advocate polygamy, incestuous unions, or even marriage among adolescents. The political conservative, oftentimes sees no reason to grant gay marriage as long as they possess equal privileges as married couples such as insurance benefits or hospital visitations. The political conservative believes that if it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it.
The government has not passed laws that forbid such relationships. Homosexuals have the freedom to love their partners, contribute to society, and to pursue happiness in every way imaginable. There is nothing that gay marriage can offer them that a civil union couldn’t, so why won’t gay activists (even journalists from the Wisconsin State Journal) opt for a civil union? The answer is simple; they want their relationships to be sanctioned by a historically coveted institution for the purposes of social advancement. There is no concern about the irreparable harm gay marriage might pose to an institution that has stood the test of time. Could not polygamists, adolescents, and incestuous couples make the very same arguments to sanction their relationships with the stamp of marriage? If gay marriage is legalized across the states, then how does one prohibit other groups from bastardizing traditional marriage? Opinions like these are the ones that don't get published in papers like the Wisconsin State Journal.