To the Editor:
Tanisha Keshava, in "Victory for Same-Sex Couples" (The Dartmouth, Feb. 12), raises a very key fact that has not been raised enough in the ongoing debate of same-sex marriage. The fact that such visible and powerful religious figures such as Boston Archbishop O'Malley are protesting the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision underlines the important point that the main defense of the "sanctity of marriage" is a religious one. This is fine, and I have no argument against this. I respect the faith and religion of others even if their beliefs go against mine. However, what is not fine are the hundreds of state and over 1,000 federal and secular benefits that are tied to marriage. These range from tax benefits to hospital visitation rights and beyond. If marriage is going to be denied to same-sex couples on religious grounds, then it clearly has no place on the secular law books across the United States. It's more than okay to leave religious marriage to places of worship. If a priest or a rabbi, for example, does not wish to perform a same-sex marriage, one has no business in forcing him or her to do so, and same-sex marriage proponents are certainly not pushing for that. But it is quite wrong and incompatible with the fundaments of our nation to deny the many benefits of civil marriage to those who are not welcome in the many religious sects opposing same-sex marriage. It is simply unacceptable and against our federal Constitution to give preference to those in an institution whose religious basis forbids many from entering into it.
