Gay marriage is an issue that merits discussion, and Chris Langevin's letter to the editor (The Dartmouth, March 31) represents an earnest attempt to address the issue. This, though, may be the only area in which I agree with Langevin, and others who oppose the legalization of gay marriage in the United States.
While historical rationale are an end to themselves, it is useful to begin by mentioning that the notion of what constitutes a citizen in the United States has a dynamic, and sometimes sinister, history. It was not too long ago that presumable differences between races and sexes were reason enough to disenfranchise minorities and women from such civic activities as voting. It was common sense at the time that these people were not afforded these rights because of their proper status as second-class citizens. Opponents of gay marriage, including Langevin, make that case that homosexuals are not being deprived a right afforded to others, at least not in a limited sense of what has come to traditionally define marriage.
I am confused by one passage in yesterday's letter, in which Langevin first says that the impetus for homosexuality is arguably inborn, but then goes on (in the same sentence) to say that it is not a predetermined characteristic like melanin content.
Admittedly, this is a minor point of contention, and may simply be chalked up to nothing more than ambiguous phrasing. Nonetheless, there is actually very little argument on the point in the vast majority of contemporary literature concerning human biology, evolutionary psychology, or ethology. Homosexuality is not a behavior or trait limited to just human beings, and it is definitely not a social phenomenon of recent historical development.
They commonly grant that individuals hold rights, but fail to extend that logic and identify couples and groups as being composed of individuals.
For those interested in discrimination, groups often provide an easier target, and it is safe to say that homosexuals as a group have faced organized, often vitriolic, and sometimes institutionalized opposition. But do social conservatives propose that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 be stricken in favor of millions of separate Acts each dealing with individual voters? Of course not, because that is a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum. In this instance, so is their logic.
The most egregious argument used by opponents of gay marriage, and one displayed yesterday in Langevin's letter, is the insistence that the criteria for which gay marriage must pass muster is its usefulness to society. There is ambiguity as to whether this position emanates from pragmatic idealism or simple totalitarianism, but even if one were to grant the benefit of the doubt and opt for the former, the argument has disturbing implications about the nature of a just society. Throughout his brief letter, Langevin asserts the primacy of the individual, but then says that it is for the benefit of the general welfare that gay marriage should be evaluated. First, this infers that a union between two homosexuals should somehow contribute to the group as a whole (a point easily affirmed), but secondly, this also infers that individual rights are filtered through the prism of the group. To this one must ask, which is it: individual rights or group rights? Who gets primacy in this instance? And if opting for the latter, whose group? Shouldn't laws and norms protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority, not the other way around.
This line of reasoning is nothing more than the tail wagging the dog, and it is only hurt by an underlying assumption that gay marriage will somehow degrade the social welfare of all.
Opponents assert that gay marriage has civic ramifications and must be evaluated in that light.
But if one is to accept the premise that gay marriage has these ramifications, then why is it inappropriate to discuss the issue within the framework of civil rights, equal access and due process?
I fear that the line of reasoning that would reject using these prisms to evaluate gay marriage can sometimes be the proverbial tip of the discriminatory iceberg, one devoid of any mature concept of fairness or justice.
