In reading the Dartmouth Editorial Board's Verbum Ultimum (The Dartmouth, Feb. 20), we were disturbed to see an overt display of intolerance for socially conservative positions -- specifically, the issue of gay marriage. In a community where we claim to value diversity, tolerance and dialogue, it was saddening to see The Dartmouth Editorial Board issue an edict that was so clearly in violation of these basic principles. In shaping this debate, the editorial board suggested that individuals seeking to protect traditional marriage as a "struggling" institution were in fact doing so for reasons of "bigotry and prejudice." We find it odd that while this board and many other gay rights activists rail against conservatives for being "intolerant," they commend the same vice which they decry. Tellingly, the editorial concludes that traditional conceptions of marriage are opposite of "progress," and that these old notions will be swept away. Interestingly, these conclusions seem so strangely intolerant.
The undeniable fact with regards to the institution of marriage is that over thousands of years of diverse human history, the same traditions have developed and endured. From the ancient tribes of the South Pacific to the Mongols to the West Africans -- perhaps more than serendipity is working when one notices that each had concurrently defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. These fundamentals of human society have shaped who we are today; indeed, they remain a part of the collective human experience.
Inevitably, liberals will impulsively claim that slavery too has long been a human institution -- consequently, they say, this amounts to our advocating that slavery should never have been abolished in the West. In personal discussions, this reasoning arises all too often. What is often forgotten is that slavery is and always has been an inherently evil institution, a product of corrupt human minds and actions. Contrariwise, marriage is the antithesis of an evil, distorted institution -- it is the culmination of love, a sacred bond and a perpetual union. And now a few activists are trying to garner widespread societal recognition of their hijacking of the institution of marriage.
The Dartmouth Editorial Board claims that New Hampshire lawmakers, with their stress on freedom and liberty, should actually exert their influence on ensuring "one of the most important freedoms afforded to an individual -- to choose a partner and form a permanent and lasting relationship." In point of fact (if this indeed refers to marriage), this is a timeless freedom that has been granted only between a man and a woman. Not until the past decade has a state attempted to extend more "freedoms" in allowing same-sex marriage. We must support the New Hampshire Legislature in its efforts to end recognition of an artificial and damaging aberration that into which judiciaries in states like Massachusetts are illegally coercing their legislatures.
Given the aforementioned analysis, it would seem that the editorial condemning the New Hampshire Legislature was less about tolerance and progress, and more about politics -- no surprise. Politics is that arena which mitigates a head to head collision of worldviews and values. In some respects, this is where the decisions should be made in our Federalist Republic. What is surprising is how these activists have opted to bypass the legislative process in pursuit of their agenda to legalize gay marriages. Instead of allowing the American people some say in our democratic tradition through their elected representatives, these individuals must force undemocratic change through the corruption of the American judiciary -- an ideally apolitical institution. The tragedy of the matter is that the tradition of "government by the consent of the governed" is destroyed in this process of activism. Instead of allowing American society to steer the course of policy, these radicals seek to collaborate with politically liberal and activist judges in forcing their politics on the citizenry of this nation.
With regards to the U.S. Constitution, a definition of marriage is certainly plausible. Gay rights activists have asserted that the U.S. Constitution has only been used to grant freedoms and enumerate specific powers of government. More saliently, if a definition of marriage amendment were passed, it would not restrict any rights, but only explicitly define an already existing right. As hard as it may be for homosexual activists to admit, the right to marry has been and is currently available to all Americans.
The right to marry, we hope, is something that can never be abrogated in American society -- which is why we now support the courageous members of the New Hampshire Legislature, President Bush, and applaud their efforts to add a Marriage Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
