Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to Jeff Nicoson's Oct. 21 column "Gaymarriage activists seeking special rights." Mr. Nicoson's articlebrings up the recent decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals,which found in part that gay couples, since they cannot producechildren, do not serve the public interest and are thereforeinferior to heterosexual couples.
The first problem with this argument is that logically, it mustapply to heterosexual marriages between couples that either cannothave children or choose not to. The Arizona Court of Appeals isarguing that marriages that do not produce children also do notfurther the public interest, and so are not a "fundamental libertyinterest protected by due process."
If that is true, the court is giving its state the option todeny marriage licenses to couples who, for whatever reason, willnot have children. Apparently, two people who are medicallyincapable of producing children do not have the fundamental rightto marry one another, because they do not serve the state'sinterests. Should the state require a fertility test beforegranting a marriage license? Or maybe the government will requirethat couples have children within three years of getting marriageto ensure that they are paying back the state properly for theprivilege of marriage.
The next logical step is for the state to tell you how to raisethose children so they can best serve the public interest.
Of course, as Mr. Nicoson points out, marriages provide otherbenefits to society, including "poverty reductions, less welfaredependency, longer life spans, lower health care costs and reducedcriminal activity." What exactly is it about homosexual marriagesthat prevent them from providing these benefits?
Absolutely nothing. All of these effects result when two people,regardless of their gender, commit to facing the challenges of lifetogether and work together to meet those challenges. Add to thatthe fact that a gay couple is just as capable of providing anadopted child with a supportive, nurturing family as a heterosexualcouple is, and there is no difference between the two other thanthe gender of the participants. And, as the Fourteenth Amendmentsays, "No state shall ... deny to any person within itsjurisdiction the equal protection of its laws."
The state should not be allowed to deny a marriage license basedon the gender of the applicants.
The main thrust of Mr. Nicoson's column, however, expresses hisdismay at the fact that same-sex marriage advocates are arguingthat "marriage should be delegalized because it is discriminatory."I cannot speak for these people, but I do not think they actuallywant marriage delegalized. What they are saying is that same-sexcouples have the same right to marry as anyone else. Therefore, ifgay couples cannot marry, the conclusion must be that no one hasthe right to marry. I would be shocked if this were an actualattack on the institution of marriage. I think that most same-sexmarriage advocates would be much happier if the Supreme Courtdecided that every couple has the right to marry, regardless ofsexual orientation.
Whether a marriage produces children or not, it does serve thestate's interest by providing a stabilizing force for the marriedcouple. This is true of all marriages, which is why marriage shouldbe considered a fundamental right of all people, regardless oftheir sexual orientation.
Matt Davis
senior
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
