The debate on gay marriage, one largely being fought at the legislative level, is being discussed and confronted from irrational, and ultimately, flawed, approaches. The left, unfortunately, has confronted America's value system, one belied by religious principle that is unbending in its definition of good and bad. The moral and religious leaders of the United States will not bend in their opposition towards gay marriage, and this liberal doesn't believe they should. Age-old conservative values can not simply be rerouted because of the vocal gay minority and people's personal principles should be respected. Hence the attempts by the Left to defend gay marriage or civil unions on any moral ground in the United States is the political equivalent of speaking pig Latin and calling it a second language, a misrepresentation of reality. It is an insult to the morals of many Americans to legalize gay marriage and exactly why the left has had such a difficult time trying to pass legislation on the matter.

Acknowledging the shortcomings of liberals in their argument, I wholeheartedly support the movements of gay couples to marry, in whatever interpretation of marriage they see fit. In my mind, the rights of gays to marry is not a matter of moral principle, but rather of interpretation of an institution of life. For example, marriage for some people in the United States involves only the consent of the parents.

Pennsylvania repealed their adultery law, and other states rarely enforce their own, essentially rendering adultery laws nonexistent. Additionally, anti-sodomy laws, which once defined what kind of sex you could have, are quickly being nullified. The overturning and discontinuation of such laws has shown that marriage doesn't have to fall under the confines of any religious or ethical rules. A couple may have sex via any orifice, and they may interchange partners with little to no consequence in the eyes of the court. Hence, the irrational defense of the Right that the sanctity of marriage needs to be protected was rendered ridiculous a long time ago, when divorce was made legal and now even more so that we allow for all sorts of unconventional marriage behavior. What all these examples show is that it is not necessary for the American people to accept gay marriage as an acceptable union between two people. If it is someone's belief that marriage is not exclusively for a man and woman, that belief, irregardless of its underlying principle, should fall under the protection of the constitution.

The argument becomes tainted when popular politics become involved. The political right has attempted to exploit the moral foundation of many Americans, and legislate against gay marriage. The Left has been using the progressive tendencies of their states to do the opposite, legislating on behalf of civil unions and gay marriage. By playing the same game as the Right at the state level, the Left has further divided Americans on this issue-an issue that I feel should be decided by an objective observer, not by the whims of an easily swayed public or a liberal state legislature. This is a decision that advocacy groups need to take to the U.S. Supreme Court by challenging a conservative state Supreme Court's denial of a marriage license. Current court precedents have not yet affirmed the constitutional legality of an alternate interpretation of marriage; rather, as the Massachusetts court ruling stated, they have simply "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to not allow a gay marriage to take place. The precedent set forth by the courts needs to be an affirmative statement that categorizes the alternative form of marriage as a legitimate minority group, whose rights must be protected under the constitution. This way popular legislation cannot be passed to discriminate against gay couples, and a judicial precedent could be set that would preclude any Constitutional amendment defining this particular aspect of marriage.

It was the intention of our founding fathers to protect the beliefs of minorities when they didn't disrupt the premise of American life. Although America is heavily influenced by religion, there is nonetheless no firm alliance between religion and state. In fact, the Constitution explicitly calls for this separation. Recall when the U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ordered the removal of a monument of the Ten Commandments from an Alabama state building. Judge Myron said Alabama's Chief Justice Roy Moore's placement of the Ten Commandments in a state building violated the U.S. Constitution's principle of the separation between church and state. Because gay marriage is in no way a threat to the stability of American life, its interpretation by the gay community should be as respected as is the Hindu community's belief in arranged marriages. The majority of America doesn't even need to agree with homosexuality, or be sensitive to its presence. What gay marriage advocates need to realize is that they are a minority, and like all minorities before them, they will struggle, be marginalized and ostracized from society. I don't defend gay marriage because I believe a marriage between two men or two women is as valid as a traditional marriage, but because I believe that the values gay men or women hold should be protected under the Constitution in the same manner that different religious values are protected.

Cabeza can be contacted at

rcabeza08@amherst.edu