April Goodwin raises a genuinely valid point about religious dogma ruling society in Wednesday’s Daily.

But I believe she misses the boat concerning the debate over homosexual marriages.

With most people, I don’t believe there is any malice intended toward others on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or otherwise.

However, the issue I believe many (including myself) have with mandating and legalizing of homosexual unions is not in the union itself or the supposed psychological “after-effects” upon society.

Rather, it is upon the tangible issues which are brought up by these unions, most namely benefits, especially in taxation.

I don’t believe individuals should be forced to advocate either implicitly or explicitly, the moral systems of others.

Rather, by living in society, the only contract implicitly agreed upon should be a doctrine of respect for the natural rights of others: life, liberty and property.

Morality is a much more private issue; thus government should neither tout a specific moral system nor expect others to give their consent to a specific system.

The only thing government should expect from citizens is consent with the law itself.

This is why legalizing homosexual marriages puts both government and citizens into a moral quandary.

The legalization and provision of benefits to homosexual unions represents a specific moral stance.

Why? Because marriage is a moral and religious institution.

By giving homosexual unions the same status as heterosexual ones, the government inherently forces individuals to give implicit consent to the legitimacy of these unions by paying out tax dollars in the form of tax shelters for homosexual couples and other benefits.

Agree or disagree with the concept behind these unions, it quickly turns into tyranny when government forces individuals to monetarily advocate specific moral choices.

In fact, if you want to go that route, you may as well forsake the separation of church and state altogether.

This isn’t the whole story, however.

For years, the government has given de facto consent to heterosexual marriages by providing them with legal protection and special tax status.

This is essentially the implicit advocation of a chosen lifestyle in and of itself, which proves similar to the dispute raised over the legitimacy of homosexual unions.

The solution?

Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a legal one. Get rid of governmental legislation of morality- make ALL marriages simply religious ceremonies and end the debate once and for all.

That way, any person will truly be able to live in their chosen lifestyle without forcing consent of such lifestyles down anyone else’s throat.

Government has no place trying legitimize ANY marriage, and the precedent set by the implicit advocation of heterosexual marriage is what has caused the whole debate in the first place.

Some people also argue that married people are entitled to certain benefits.

I must ask why.

Because you live together?

The only justification for the government to subsidize heterosexual marriages is marginal at best: the production of progeny to ensure a future labor force.

Yet, instead of paying people simply to turn out workers, perhaps a more just and democratic process would also be a more responsible one: encourage people only to have as many kids as they can feasibly support off of their joined incomes.

Do you see how the entire debate starts to become defused as we begin taking a different paradigm?

Instead of making a fruitless debate about the merits (or lack thereof) of homosexuality and homosexual unions, perhaps it would be more fruitful to cast off our de facto assumptions and apply logical reasoning to the situation.

---

Steve Skutnik

Freshman

Physics