To the Editor:
I find that I must respond to J. Mulei Nthenge's Monday editorial entitled "Gay Marriage is Illogical." Aside from the erroneous and fallacious "logic" employed by Nthenge, the sophomoric tone of the article was offensive, given the seriousness of its conclusions.
As for the logic: for someone who feels "the idea of recognizing a gay marriage is myopic," Nthenge's assumption that legal recognition of marriage is necessary only "because it has the potential for children" seems stunningly limited.
Gay marriages often do include children; heterosexual marriages often do not. Marriage entitles partners to shared benefits (like health insurance) and working privileges (like medical leaves for spouses). It facilitates mortgages, bank accounts, and the transaction of official documents.
Extending the rights and privileges of marriage to gay couples merely includes same-sex unions into the legal fold of society which recognizes the unique situation of two individuals who have chosen to share a life (and maybe a house, insurance, offspring, etc.) together.
Does Nthenge advocate determining marital status upon procreative intentions (or capabilities) alone? Should we evaluate semen and ovaries along with the routine blood test before granting a marriage license?
Clearly children often complete a family; but they are not the sole criteria for one.
Still, overlooking the gross generalizations of the article and tossing aside the very real fact that women (moms, grandmoms, aunts, friends, etc.), and not some traditional, nebulous notion of "the marriage," have for many years been children's caretakers, what of Nthenge's ultimate conclusion that recognizing gay marriage would lead to throngs of tax break-crazed Americans flooding the chapels of the nation?
Clearly this is unlikely -- after all, heterosexual couples have always been able to marry one another, without love, and receive the same tax benefits.
Yet there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming problem of artificial financially motivated heterosexual marriage. Is it merely the notion of a same-sex union that would incite the masses to tax-cut frenzy? I doubt it.
Despite Nthenge's arguments to the contrary, marriage has for many years rested upon a mutual desire for companionship (dare I say love?) that sometimes, but not always, includes children and worthwhile tax cuts.
To imply that anti-incest and minimum-age marriage laws somehow justify heterosexual-only unions is absurd. Gay marriage is neither a special privilege nor lethal threat; it is merely an equal application of the law.
