I must take issue with Angela Kramer’s column on Oct. 7, “The (un)constitutionality of Prop 8.”
By expressing a disinterest in discussing the definition of marriage and focusing on the “threat to equal protection,” Angela effectively refuses to take an overt position on the central issue of the debate but then proceeds on the assumption that her implicit position is an established fact. While refusing to state a position undoubtedly reduces the effectiveness of counterarguments (“You can’t challenge my claim, because I didn’t claim anything”), it is not rational to refuse to state a premise and then base the rest of the argument upon that premise. The definition of marriage is undoubtedly at the center of this debate.
Roughly, marriage is either between a man and a woman, or it is between two people, gender irrelevant. If it is simply between two people, then gays have been denied civil rights and equal protection – along with straights, who were also prevented from marrying someone of the same sex. If marriage is between a man and a woman, then gays had the same legal opportunities to marry as straights did – even though they had no interest in exercising them. In either case, while the derived satisfaction from the law was different for straights and gays, the law itself did not distinguish between them. Therefore, the question is not whether the law is discriminatory, but whether it justly reflects reality.
It is not the name that matters, but reality. If I were to call myself President of the United States, would I therefore be entitled to veto power over $700 billion bailout bills? Indeed not. “But we’re both called ‘president,’ and I’m as good as he!” Perhaps so, but it’s not the name that matters, it is the reality that matters. If marriage is between a man and a woman, then the term “gay marriage” servers rather to deceive than to enlighten, for it is not marriage at all. And if it is not marriage, then its proponents cannot complain about it being treated unequally, because it is simply not equal.
So, if marriage is between a man and a woman, then why not simply redefine it? Perhaps we can, perhaps we can’t. It depends on whether “marriage” is something that truly exists, like love, justice and the Rock of Gibraltar, or whether it is something we just made up and can alter as the mood strikes us, like healthcare and my backyard garden. But again, this comes down to truth, and not our inclinations or preferences.
It has been said that Prop 8 forces the beliefs on one group onto another. Indeed it does. But so does the legalization of gay marriage. There is no neutrality here; either the one group prevails, or the other.
What does it matter that Prop 8 would dissolve thousands of same-sex unions? If it is not marriage, then it is not marriage, and inconvenience is not a compelling argument against reality.
It may be argued that Prop 8 is an outlet for homophobia. In some cases, I think that’s true – but it is irrelevant. The truth of a statement does not hinge upon the motives for making that statement. Some people may support Prop 8 for the wrong reasons, but that does not affect whether or not Prop 8 is right.
What matters here is not motive, wish or preference. What matters is truth. If marriage is truly between a man and a woman, as it has been understood since the dawn of humanity, then that is simply the way it is. If not, then not. That is the crux, the heart of the matter, and it is the topic that deserves our focus.
Eric Baldwin is an electrical engineering senior and a Mustang Daily guest columnist.