Civil union, gay marriage has no place in political arena

By:

Posted: 1/27/04

01/27/04 - As the 2004 presidential primaries get underway, both republican and democratic candidates have been attempting to sidestep the issue of civil unions and gay marriage in an effort to pacify their core supporters.

While the topic often seems to make candidates uncomfortable, the question should not be one of legality but in reality, not a question at all. The United States is a country founded upon a wealth of freedoms and it is a contradiction to that foundation to allow politicians to decide on an issue of love and companionship.

In July 1997 three gay couples sued the state of Vermont and their hometowns when they refused to issue the couples marriage licenses. In 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court came through with a landmark ruling that said the state's constitution was required to grant the couples the full rights and privileges of a heterosexual marriage-but then left the implementation of its ruling to the state legislatures. The end result was a bill passed in 2000 for civil unions, allowing same-sex couples none of the advantages of heterosexual marriages, such as tax breaks and health benefits.

As the Vermont Supreme Court passed the burden onto the state legislature, gay couples received a slap in the face. Politicians aren't attempting to work for the benefit of the people they are supposed to be serving, but instead merely appeasing them in order to make it through the next election.

In President Bush's State of the Union address he called for the protection of the institution of marriage. The institution of marriage is generally defined by religion and Bush's statement begs the question: did he miss the day when the separation of church and state was discussed in his U.S. history class?

Divorce rates today are soaring as approximately half of marriages fail. According to "Human Sexuality: A Psycosocial Perspective," an academic textbook edited by Ruth K. Westheimer and Sanford Lopater, long term homosexual relationships outlast heterosexual marriages two to one. Why are our politicians so vehemently against something that is so clearly beneficial to their public? The statistics show that something is incredibly askew when the "institution of marriage" fails 50 percent of the time while what our officials oppose outlasts tradition.

Fifty years ago, politicians vehemently opposed interracial marriages for many of the same reasons that they oppose gay marriage today. What is the difference between the politicians of 50 years ago, and the politicians of today?