Another Op/Ed that I wrote for the JHU Newsletter. As always, I'd appreciate constructive criticism on the grammar, factual accuracy, sentence/paragraph structure, and overall writing style.
Last Op/Ed I posted on here was torn to shreds just because people disagreed with my opinion. I'm asking for criticism on the writing - please - I'm an engineering student who rarely writes and I just want to improve the quality of my work. If you disagree with my opinion, I ask that you express it in a pleasant manner.
Thanks.
Protect the Children
I’m a little ashamed of Maine and Washington State right now.
Next week’s elections will see two major civil rights battles in two distant corners of our country. In Maine, Proposition 1 looks to repeal a state law which granted gay couples the right to marry. In Washington, Referendum 71 could lead to a repeal of the "everything-but-marriage" law which gave gay couples all of the rights and benefits associated with marriage without the word itself.
The last two years have seen an immense amount of activity in the area of civil marriage. Several states, suddenly aware of the existence of the 14th amendment, have realized that they may not "deny any person within [their] jurisdiction equal protection of the law" nor "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." There have been highs and lows for the gay rights movement, but the trends were in their favor. Yet now, as Obama continues to delay action on controversial policy like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the activists are beginning to feel some pressure.
Polls in Maine are currently showing a small lead in the support for gay rights, but as California showed in 2008, anything can happen come November. The ‘Yes on 1’ campaign, that looking to repeal equal marriage rights, is funded primarily by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Catholic Church (I have yet to receive a response to my letter asking how the $529,666 they donated to the campaign will ultimately be used to clothe the naked or care for the sick – Matthew 25:36-40). The campaign has aired commercials over the past several months warning parents that gay marriage will lead to the repeal of their church’s tax exempt status, the legal requirement that their religion marry homosexuals, and mandatory lessons about homosexuality in 2nd grade public school classrooms. Boston College Law Professor Scott Fitzgibbon predicts a "flood of lawsuits against individuals, small businesses, and religious groups." His evidence? Certainly not his home state of Massachusetts, where The Massachusetts Discrimination Law Reporter has identified zero cases of the nature he describes since 2004, the year civil marriage was granted to homosexuals in the state.
Washington State is seeing a stronger lead for the supporters of domestic partnerships and thankfully it appears that the referendum will pass, thus guaranteeing homosexual couples the benefits associated with marriage. This hasn’t stopped the opponents of equal rights from showing their true colors, however. In a vibrant display of unjustifiable fear, state Senator Val Stevens (whose website says "Protecting Citizens [sic] Rights" in all caps directly below her name) wrote to the supporters of "Protect Marriage Washington" – a campaign looking to reject the referendum, "Could this be the final battle? Are the homosexuals finally going to take control of our culture and push their depraved lifestyle on our children and families?" Protect Marriage Washington then completely ignored the Establishment Clause and aired an ad which, after reminding voters that "In the beginning...God formed man, and he made a woman and brought her unto the man," urged them to "protect their children" by rejecting the bill which "violates God’s mandate".
Why do so many ads mention ‘protecting children’ when 20 years of studies have shown that gay parenting has ‘no emotional health effects’ on children and leads them to ‘show more empathy for social diversity’? Why do so many opponents fear the negative effects on society when 92% of polled Iowans said that the legalization of gay marriage in their state has had ‘no effect’ on their lives? Why are churches and small businesses warning of lawsuits when the state with the longest history of gay marriage has shown not a single legal battle against them?
Although the political struggle in Maine has a higher profile and is much less certain than that in Washington, it is the battle in Washington that truly speaks volumes about the opponents of gay marriage. Anyone familiar with the issue has heard the phrase ‘redefining marriage’ thrown around in debate, and each side has made their stance clear about the institution of marriage and the meaning of the word. Yet the struggle in Washington isn’t about marriage. It’s about civil rights. An approval of Referendum 71 doesn’t grant homosexual couples the right to civil marriage – it merely grants them the benefits associated with it. The term ‘marriage’ will remain between a man and a woman. "God’s mandate" will not change in any way. So why the objection?
The fight in Washington shows that opposition to gay marriage really isn’t about the marriage; it’s about the legalization and legitimization of hate. It’s about bigotry. It’s about fear. It’s about singling out a group of citizens as ‘second-class’ – and keeping them that way. It’s about maintaining a theocratic control over the norms of society – the same control that fuels the debate about abortion, stem-cell research, evolution, sex education, contraception, and countless other social issues. The opponents of gay marriage are painfully oblivious to the fact that they are showing the country exactly what motivates their fierce rejection of homosexuality: hate.
Hopefully, Maine’s Proposition 1 will fail and Washington’s Referendum 71 will pass; in due time, the legal battles of California will expose Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional violation of the equality guaranteed by the 14th amendment, and ultimately every state will realize that gay marriage isn’t about redefining a term, granting anyone special rights, or destroying religious freedom. Legalizing gay marriage is about civil rights, and if we as Americans are to say that our country stands for equality and justice, then it must be done.