Helter Skelter - Thoughts on Proposition 8

Helter Skelter
Thoughts on Proposition 8

by Colin Thomas
Writer

     Across the country, conservative and religious groups are frantically trying to encourage California voters to pass Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage reversing the California Supreme Court's May ruling. With holidays fast approaching, I find it appropriate to write about a topic inevitably presenting itself in an awkward and heavily debated fashion at Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner.
     In my earlier years, I didn't think twice about my parents' political opinions and therefore fell into line with their strict conservative tenets, but the beginning of my high school career marked a change in my critical thinking. I began questioning the foundation of my parents' arguements opposing same-sex marriage.
     According to a recent New York Times article, "A Line in the Sand for Same-Sex marriage Foes," religious conservatives are "warning in stunningly apocalyptic terms of dire consequences to the entire nation if Proposition 8 does not pass."
     I can't help but feel somewhat blown back from the previous New York Times statement. If California's religious conservatives genuinely feel that way about Proposition 8 failing, perhaps they should be more concerned with how they interpret reality.
     Quite frankly, I actually possess fewer qualms with religious arguments against same-sex marriage rather than nonreligious, despite strongly disagreeing with both. The religious argument appears to be built upon a foundation of an entirely different definition of marriage established via the statues of the religion; this argument at least possesses a stable footing (i.e. a different definition of marriage). The nonreligious argument against same-sex marriage is simply loically inadequate.
     A popular nonreligious argument opposing same-sex marriage concerns procreation. The procreation argument states same-sex couples should not be given benefits of being legally recognized as a marriage because they cannot procreate. For about eight years now, gay couples have been able to adopt in Connecticut, and it wasn't until Tuesday gay marriage was made legal there.
     If heterosexual couples can be legally married because of their potential to procreate (some of which may choose not to or unable to procreate), alleviating the financial burden of raising children, then it's only logical that same-sex couples with the potential to adopt should also be granted marriage status for the same reason. Granted, many states still do not allow same-sex couples to adopt, again another logically inadequate choice by politicians.
     Many argue that children should be raised with a mother and a father, so as to provide the environment for a healthy upbringing. Can this really not be achieved with gay parents? Again, Connecticut has been allowing gay couples to raise children for almost a decade, and I have yet to hear of their youth being crazed and disobedient destroying the fabric of their society.
     I can go on to fill the entire Op-Ed section of The Bucknellian, but alas, I have a word limit; I believe the Beatles said it best: "Let it be."

~ The Bucknellian, Vol 142, No 8 (31 Oct 2008)