by Rachel Wender ’13

Growing up in the United States, we have been told from the very first bell of Kindergarten that we live in the land of the free. We beat the redcoats back in 1776 so we could be free from our oppressors. Then why, I ask, are we not free to marry the people that we love?  The first amendment states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise.” If this is the case, then why do the arguments against gay marriage come directly from the Bible? The United States government said that church and state must be separate, yet has been ignoring that law for last 300 years. So, for those who claim that same sex marriage is a sin in the eyes of God and should therefore not be legal, I say your God has no plave in politics, and I have the constitution to back me up.

The claim that marriage, like procreation, should be between a man and a woman is simply outdated. These days baby-making has become a science, involving occasionally three or more parties. Should in-vitro be illegal, or adoption for that matter?

Others say that allowing gay marriage encourages couples to adopt, which has negative consequences on the child. New York Times writer Albert R. Hunt comments, “the alternative is often for [orphaned] children to suffer in orphanages or in flawed foster-care systems.” He then makes the point that with this logic, our laws should not allow for single parent homes because can’t those can have negative effects on children as well? And I can think of plenty of two-parent households that are not positive places to raise children.

Just because it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, does not mean it takes a man and a woman to raise a child. Good parents can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes as long as they are caring and devoted to each other and to the child. And what better way to show that love and devotion than a lifelong commitment like marriage? Denying marriage to a pair of great parents, no matter their sex, is not only idiotic, but unacceptable.

Junior Christian Knapp adds, “it’s [a same sex household] positive because they [children] are going to learn about adversity and the ability to fight for what you want. They are going to come out of their childhood with a much more open mind and the knowledge of how to better defend their principals.”

Knapp also notes, “if we want to follow the equal protection clause of the constitution, then congress should create legislation that would allow for same sex marriage in all states.”

Under the fourteenth amendment, the equal protection clause states that “no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” When same sex couples are denied the right to marry their partners, they are also denied the government provided protection that heterosexual spouses have, including healthcare.

Clearly, Knapp and I are not the only ones with this opinion. In the last couple of years the fight for same sex marriage has gained more and more support and now includes a number of Republican supporters. In the last year, more than one hundred republicans have signed a brief asking the Supreme Court to give gay and lesbian couples the constitutional right to marriage.

However, the fight must live on until it is won everywhere. At the moment there are only ten states that allow for same sex marriage, including California, New York, and Washington D.C. 40 to go!