There is an “overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage,” according to the person who represents the citizens of a country we call the “land of the free.”

Does it scare anyone else that the president makes his decisions based on what the majority believes is right? Looking back on our nation’s history, there was once an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of slavery.

Why are we protecting an institution that is at the very least unfair? And what exactly is meant by the term “institution of marriage?” After all, the institution of marriage is the same thing the gay community is trying to protect.

Denying anyone, especially the minority, the same freedoms as others is clearly nothing more than blatant discrimination.

If the “sanctity” of marriage was really the issue here, then why doesn’t the government ban reality television shows that are clearly not upholding “family values?” It is sad to think convicted murderers have the right to marry, but homosexuals do not.

If that doesn’t scream, “you’re not equal!,” I don’t know what does.

I just think that if we’re

going to talk about denying homosexuals the same freedoms heterosexuals take for granted, we should at least think about the government’s motives for doing so.

It comes down to the fact that they believe homosexuality is “immoral.” Even if that were the case, governments shouldn’t pass legislature based on “moral principles,” which is really just a fancy term for “religious beliefs.”

Didn’t it alarm anyone that, when the news of President Bush’s proposed amendment came out, the Daily interviewed a lesbian, a political science major and a staff member from a religious organization?

It is very clear that religious beliefs are the real motivation for encouraging inequality.

Justin Hope

Freshman

Early Childhood Education