Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 16, 1996)
-'N ) 60T TO THAT UST The Battalion Friday February 1 6, 1 996 Opinion Page 9 Should states recognize same-sex marriages? Marriage laws lack fairness Gay marriages can’t compare T here are no such things as gay rights. Surprised? Don’t be. However, there are such things as equal rights for les bians and gays, or so some of us would like to believe. So it would be ridiculous to assert that the case Baehr v. Leuiin is being heard by the Hawaii Supreme Court because of the work of gay-rights ac tivists. Rather, the foundation of the case is Hawaii’s state constitution, which forbids dis crimination based on sex. Hawaii’s high court is exam ining this case because the plaintiffs — four women and two men — may have been dis criminated against because of their sex when applying for a marriage license. According to the plaintiffs, the traditional laws on marriage discriminate based on sex, not on sexual ori entation. For example, if a woman applies for a marriage license, the state will not grant it to her if she wants to marry another woman. This is because she (the applicant) is a woman, not because she is a lesbian. This discrimination based on sex could be illegal in Hawaii. Baehr v. Lewin is still being ar gued in the Hawaii Supreme Court. If the state cannot find “compelling interest” as to why people of the same sex should not marry, then the courts will grant a marriage license to Ninia Baehr (and any other lesbian or gay per son who wishes to marry). But is this logical outcome just? Opponents of same-sex mar riages would have us believe it is not. The idea of two men or two women being married to each other just sounds, well ... weird. “What would come next?” they wonder. Two men holding hands in public? Two women making out while waiting at a lengthy stoplight? Considering America’s disposi tion toward these displays of affec tion, it’s doubtful these acts would magically become commonplace if the courts recognize such marriages. Opponents of same-sex mar riages also argue that allowing homosexual couples to marry would violate the “sanctity of marriage,” whatever that is. Yet before the 1970s, marrying a person of a different race was unheard of. In addition, wives were once considered subordi nates to their husbands (remem ber the vow “to obey?”). When these tenets were challenged, they too were said to violate the “sanctity of marriage.” To sug gest that same-sex marriages would do so, we would have to examine all the other dogmas that went against “traditional marriage.” We would then have to determine if these dogmas de fied our definition of sanctity. Still others are convinced that God forbids such a union. Well I talked to Her just yester day and She didn’t seem to mind. If two people are so much in love that they feel the need to commit themselves to one an other, She explained, then they should be able to. And isn’t this the essence of marriage? To say that homosex uals should not have the right to marry is to imply that they are incapable of loving, which is as hilarious as it is false. And marriage is not just devo tion. Marriage allows peoole to share pensions and benefits, in herit the assets of the other partner, make important med ical decisions and (something that all newlyweds look forward to) file joint tax returns. Same-sex marriages allow ho mosexual couples in Denmark, Norway and Sweden to enjoy these privileges. Local govern ments in the Netherlands, France and Belgium also recog nize same-sex partnerships. Even about 30 municipalities in the United States and corpora tions like Microsoft and AT&T allow the partners of homosexu al employees to enjoy their health benefits and pensions . Such programs would not ex ist if homosexuals did not have partners to which they devote themselves. Lesbians and gays, like heterosexuals, deserve the option of devoting themselves fully to another person and enjoy the perquisites of doing so. H.L. Baxter is a junior geography major A s the Hawaii Supreme Court deliber ates over the case of Baehr v. Lewin, the rest of the na tion is left to argue over what the fundamental issues of the case are. Gay-rights activists would as sert that the case is about dis crimination. Supposedly, homo sexuals who apply for marriage licenses are being discr n mated against because of their f ix or their sexual orien tation (or some murky combination of the two). But the true essence of this case involves our social definitions and con notations, and the murky combination being made of them. American culture has always defined marriage as the loving union of a woman and a man. The connotations associated with mar ital status have changed through out American history; at various times individuals have described the institution as sacred, debased, chauvinistic and fashionable. However, the one man-one woman definition has been re markably constant. Similarly, we have always de fined homosexuals as people who prefer members of their own sex. The definition is constant, but the prevailing feelings about ho mosexuality have changed. Ho mosexuals have been seen as confused, perverse, intriguing and normal. Society is working now to re move many of the negative conno tations that were once associated with homosexuality. It is right to do so. Homosexuals have the right to live without the fear of vi olence. Their economic livelihood should not be imperiled because of their sexual preference. The Constitution dictates that, as citi zens, they are entitled to equal protection under the law. However, their sexual prefer ence precludes then from partici pating in marriage as we know it. We should not change the cul tural definition of marriage simply because we have changed our feel ings about homosexuality. Admittedly, the arguments for recognizing same-sex marriages are compelling. At first glance, states that refuse to grant legal status to a loving couple seem horribly oppressive. However, the union of blood rel- atiVes could alsoDe given a veneer of social legitimacy. What gives the state the right to tell people that they can’t marry just because they are uncle and niece? The answer is simple. The soci- etal definition of family creates that right. Our guts and an arbi trary taboo tell us that sexual re lations between family members cannot constitute a marriage. Society has marriage laws that exist solely because of mandate. If all a marriage requires is loving consensual participants, why do we prohibit three people from joining and forming a mar riage? That arrangement is in stead defined as a household. Why can't a woman marry more than one man? She can't be cause that action is called polyandry, not marriage. In the plurality of human sexu al behavior, all of these relation ships occur, and all have connota tions associated with them. But they are not the same thing. It is ironic that same-sex cou ples would unintentionally sub vert the institution that they are trying to join. If the boundaries prohibiting homosexual marriage fall, all other restrictions must come into question. Without a stable set of charac teristics, marriage becomes noth ing but a bland social contract that any affectionate group can enter into. Similarly, without clearly defined institutions, soci ety becomes nothing but a ragged collection of individuals. I love my gay friends too much to argue over the legitimacy of their lifestyle. People love who they love. However, if there is one painfully unromantic lesson that modem marriage has taught us, it is that love alone does not a mar riage make. The plaintiffs in Baehr v. Lewin may not recognize it, but marriage requires that a couple meet legal requirements and con form to some arbitrary social norms. If we throw out the norms one piece at a time, the institu tion is soon to follow. j'dremy Valdez is a senior chemical engineering major Jeremy (C| Valdez Columnist 4 !3lll Expect Major delays S ome people never change. The British will always be stodgy and Impe rial, never wanti ng to let go of the title, “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” The Irish will always want freedom and respect, never giving up their obsession with poetry, revolutionaries and martyrs. And the Irish Republican Army will always have its bombs. Last Saturday, the IRA claimed responsibility for the Fri day night bombing in an east London business district that killed two and injured 37. By Sunday, British paratroopers, an open wound in Ireland for nearly 30 years, were back on the streets, dressed for the occasion with flak jackets, automatic weaponry and armored vehicles. With each delay the struggle for peace seems futile; the blood flows so thick at times that it looks as if Ireland will never be clean again. Almost two years have passed without bombs or snipers or even children tossing rocks. Now, British Prime Minister John Major’s dawdling has forced Irish frustrations to boil over into renewed violence with a promise of more to come. The only question is, where can we possibly go from here? After 350 years of British op pression, a person might think that the lads in Ulster had learned patience as well as how to wire explosives. As difficult as it may be, now is the time for Irish Republicans to have faith in polit ical figures, especially Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein — the political voice of the IRA. Equally difficult, but equally im portant, is ignoring the British political gambits. The IRA owes a responsibility to Irish negotiators to put the war on hold. The bureaucratic process toward peace is indeed frustrat ing and absurd, but at least it is a peace process and not a war. With the collective cease-fire in 1994 of the Protestant and Catholic paramilitary groups, British troops were no longer marching about like a Nazi parade. Without British in fluence, the sectari an nonsense that choked the people and kept them un employed and sepa rated by physical walls had subsided. Catholics were doing business in Protestant neighborhoods and the Protestants were doing likewise. The Houston Chronicle quoted Belfast resident Brady Harvey, a Protestant, who said, “We just couldn’t go back.” That’s the truth of it; the Irish, be they loyal or Republican, can’t afford to go back. Major is going to be forced tb face the reality of Ulster indepen dence. Major was successful in his attempt to stall talks with his un bending demands that the IRA turn over their guns. What Major apparently cannot comprehend is the fact that the IRA is an army that has declared war on Britain. This foolish ignorance recently cost two Londoners their lives. It’s time for Major to move for ward. I know the IRA; I’ve read every book and every news clip with the word Ireland in it. The Irish Republican Army will not give up until Ireland is free. But now, war is a moot point. Now is the time for a renewed cease-fire. The IRA must face the fact that total peace will take time. Generations must grow up in an Ireland without the facade of British supremacy. Peace is never forced on people. Peace comes when people grow weary of walking alongside barbed-wire fences and military blockades. The ravaging violence that stains Ireland’s history gives the island an image of beauty veiled with innocent blood. Peo ple have lost their lives to British hatred and to Irish rage, but it will not be in vain if things keep moving forward. If this generation of Irishmen can put their rage on hold and the British can learn to bend, then the next generation won’t have to pay for the sins of their fathers — as has been the case for almost four centuries. Alex Walters is a junior theater arts and journalism major Alex Walters Staff Writer Battalion favors Corps with coverage Is tradition a justifiable ex cuse for hypocrisy? By the amount of time and coverage The Battalion has allotted for the investigation of Pi Kappa Alpha I believe that it thinks it is. It seems that whenever the opportunity arises for the Batt to create or instigate further turmoil between the Greeks Mail Oll I and the non-Greeks at Texas A&M, it is blown out of propor tion and repeatedly used until the story’s last breath has escaped it. Yet it is mind-blowing that when the Corps of Cadets bend, or break, the rules that the students, faculty, and the Batt turn their head because it is tradition. For example, The Battalion has made sure that the entire student body be aware of the investigation, the trial, and outcome of the Iri Kappa Alpha Fraternity. I agree that the student body has right to know this information, but I find it total ly hypocritical that the Batt never covers the same scenario when it involves the Corps. For example, last semester the Corps was investigated for hazing, put on trial, and several members were expelled from the university; yet this incident was never covered by the Batt much less plastered across the front page of the paper. It seems that the faculty, and the Batt go out of their way to dig up some dirt on a fraternity while the Corps hazes freely on campus (ac cording to the hazing laws of Texas) because it is tradition. I find it shameful that at a first class university with out standing traditions has come to this. These same traditions can be used as a protective covering by some but lead others to become hypocrites. It is my belief that until this double-standard is put to death A&M can never reach its full potential. Chad Muse Class of ’98 The Battalion encourages letters to the editor and will print as many as space al lows. Letters must be 300 words or less and include the author's name, class, and phone number. We reserve the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed McDon ald. A valid student ID is required. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1 111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: Batt@tamvm1 .tamu.edu
