The fight to 'Just let people live'
By Brooke Boniface
On Jan. 11, 2010 the much anticipated and discussed federal court challenge of Proposition 8, California's ban on same sex marriage, began in a courtroom in San Francisco. The main litigators for the opposition of Prop 8 are Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented Bush and Gore respectively in the 2000 Supreme Court case that decided the presidency. These two ideological opposites are now uniting to bring the hopes and prayers for equality of gays everywhere to fruition.
According to the New York Times, in the course of the case, "proponents of same-sex marriage hope to show that there is no adequate justification under the federal Constitution for Proposition 8," and that the fundamental right to marry should be shared by all. Olson particularly believes that this case will explain why gay marriage does nothing to damage or take away from the integrity of marriage as it is today.
On the other hand, the New York Times states that, "opponents of such marriages say the federal challenge amounts to a pointless show trial in a community predisposed to favor the unions." The outcome of this case will definitely not be the final word in the battle for gay marriage, but it will be an important rallying point for whichever side emerges victorious.
On Jan. 21, William Tam took the stand as a prime example of the homophobic thought which has dominated the anti-gay marriage discourse. Tam is a Chinese American who has written an impassioned appeal in defense of "traditional marriage." In one passage of his work he states, "In a macro environment in which homosexuality is gradually accepted as being normal, child molesting by gays is gradually being viewed as normal in academia...Therefore, gay people grow in numbers even as most of them do not have children of their own."
It is this type of thinking based not upon facts but upon fear and ignorance that leads people astray from learning the truth about issues such as gay marriage. Homosexuality is not indoctrinated into children through sodomy and molestation: that is unfounded and fear-mongering language that should be stricken from any educated debate concerning gay marriage.
If you have the right to marry the person you love, who are you to take that right away from someone else?
People who are against gay marriage are willing to allow murderers, felons, child molesters, wife beaters, Tiger Woods and Elliot Spitzer to get married but not a loving gay couple.
These people are able to stand up in front of their community and declare their love for another person and receive the rights that come along with marriage. And yet two people who may be kind, caring and upstanding members of their community are not allowed to do the same only because of their sexual orientation. This, to me, is abhorrent and a degradation of this nation's founding creed, that "all men are created equal."
As my roommate so often says, "just let people live." If everyone would simply live their own lives the way they want and allow others to do the same, far fewer issues would be eating away at our society. At the moment, legalizing gay marriage seems like a huge step that would have unforeseen consequences when really, as stated in the New York Times, "legalizing gay marriage is like electing a black president. Before you do it, it seems inconceivable. Once it's done, you can't remember what all the fuss was about."
Brooke Boniface is a sophomore history and political science double major.