I grew up in Eaton, Ohio, a rural, conservative town about the same size as Amherst. At my high school, not one of my nearly 800 peers was openly gay because coming out would have been social suicide. In a conversation about gay rights, one of my teachers referred to same-sex unions as "faggot marriages." When I wrote an editorial for my high school newspaper in support of gay rights, the principal would not allow it to be published. Most disturbing to me, though, is that my best friend was forced by the community to live a lie for five years and to this day worries about people at home knowing that he's gay. In contrast, since beginning school here at the College I have signed up for the Pride Alliance, have shopped a class called "The History of Homosexuality" and live directly above the Rainbow Room. While few people would claim that either Amherst or Eaton is an average American town, the disparity between them illustrates a significant trend in American politics.

Anyone who has turned on a news program in the past five years has heard about the chasm that has formed in our nation's political scene. In 2000, we witnessed what might have been the closest presidential election of all time, and today controversial issues have split the nation nearly as evenly. Out of all of the hot button political issues, gay rights may be the most divisive and the most active in recent months.

In the last half-year gay rights advocates have achieved several victories. Sodomy laws have been overturned, gay clergy have been accepted and the first gay public high school has been opened. All of these changes may signal a shift in national opinion. Furthermore, in terms of North America, Canada has passed a sweeping same-sex marriage law. At the same time, though, anti-gay rhetoric has also surged in reaction to the recent advances. There are many conflicting and passionately held beliefs with very few compromises to be found.

The most recent Gallup poll showed that half of Americans are opposed to gay marriage, a quarter are in support and the remaining quarter have no opinion. However, civil unions proved less divisive, with the same poll showing that the views on civil unions are practically even.

The presidential candidates' stances on same-sex unions reflect the diverse popular opinion. Of the six remaining candidates for the Democratic nomination, only the two "fringe candidates," Sharpton, and Kucinich, are in favor of gay marriage while the more popular Democrats have moved to the center to appeal to as much of their constituency as possible. Kerry, Dean, Edwards and Clark all oppose same-sex marriage but are in favor of civil unions. Bush too has pandered to his base, supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage to "defend the sanctity of marriage against activist judges."

Last week, proof of this great American divide came when the Ohio legislature passed what The New York Times called, "one of the most sweeping bans on same-sex unions in the country," and 24 hours later, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that nothing shy of same-sex marriages would satisfy their landmark Nov. 19 decision establishing that Massachusetts constitution requires gay marriage legislation. While the laws were characteristic of my experiences in the two states, neither signals the end of the gay marriage debate. In fact, last week's legislation brings America closer to the inevitable: a Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.

Fittingly, the Court is as disjoined as the country. Therefore it is difficult to predict the outcome of such a monumental case. However, the recent decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned a sodomy law by a decision of 6-3, might be the best indicator. As a dissenter, Justice Scalia said the ruling "held to be a constitutional right what had been a criminal offense at the time of the founding and for nearly 200 years thereafter." Surely, Scalia will use the same logic when deciding on gay marriage, just as President Bush has pointed out that marriage has been between a man and a woman for 2,000 years. Of course, the same logic could have been used by those upholding other long-held injustices in the past-slave owners and those against women's suffrage, for example.

Arguments against equality and tolerance, based on precedent, have a questionable pedigree, to say the least. If precedent has proven anything, it is that using history as a guideline for the application of civil liberties is, at best, a misguided effort. The important thing is that we make the right decisions, not that our world remains familiar and steady. If society allowed consistency to trump progress, as Scalia and Bush support, we would be living in a far different world. Hopefully, we won't find out how different.