-'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