George,

Conservatives seem to think that allowing homosexuals to marry would lead to the destruction of family values. There is absolutely no evidence to back this claim. In fact, from what I've seen here in Europe - and again, I'm not a sociologist, just your average guy who observes what goes on and uses his God-given common sense - the inverse is true. About half of Europe’s nations have passed laws in recent years allowing homosexual marriage or civil unions. Some of these nations include Denmark (the first to pass such legislation), Norway, and the Netherlands. People who are opposed to such unions exist in Europe (the most vocal amongst them ultra-conservative Muslims not wishing to tolerate the societal practices of the country in which they find themselves living), but social tension surrounding homosexuality is nothing compared to what I’ve witnessed in the States. European civilization has not ground to a halt in any of the countries allowing homosexual unions, and family values still remain stronger, in general, in Europe than in America. People eat dinner with their families without needing to be reminded by a television commercial. Families seem to be much closer. Even children from recomposed families (like the Brady Bunch) and single-parent families seem to have fewer problems than in the States. So judging from my experiences, the conservative gloom-and-doom outlook on homosexual marriage is complete nonsense. I can look out the window and see with my own two eyes that what the conservatives are claiming might happen as a result of allowing homosexuals to marry is a big, stinking load of horse manure.

These people are political opportunists taking advantage of the ignorance of the populace in order to instill an irrational fear in them. This is shameful. Politicians like to use emotional fear tactics in their campaigns to sway voters' opinions. However, one should be alarmed when certain fear tactics are targeted against a specific portion of the population. Doing so could pave the way for violence and discrimination – especially in a country as violent as America (sorry, but after living abroad for so long I realize how sadly true this is). Such a mindset should give any freedom-loving American reason to pause. In a country where a black man can still be dragged to death behind a pick-up truck (Texas, mid 90's if I remember correctly) and a gay kid can be brutally beaten and murdered (Wyoming, late 90's if I remember correctly), we as Americans, as founders of the first democratic republic of modern times, should be asking ourselves, “are we really doing the best we can vis-à-vis human rights?”

I don’t think limiting rights and benefits for homosexuals on a federal level should be the answer to the homosexual marriage question. Bush should respect the vast diversity of the different regions of the United States and allow certain regions of the country that are more welcoming to homosexuals to be able to give them the benefits their electorate wishes if approved of and financed by local governments. He should respect the fact that every region in America is not as conservative as Midland, TX, and some Americans may wish to live in a different manner than he does. In fact, as American citizens, they have a right to do so. Bush talks about local governments and judges arbitrarily imposing their wills on the people. He’s proposing doing exactly the same thing, only on a national scale. I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a big, stinking load of hypocrisy, especially from a party that claims to support states’ rights. They only support them when it’s convenient for their own interests, apparently.

I should point out that I am a Christian and I'm fully aware of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and that Christians and Jews (at least) consider Sodomy a sin. Well, I've never practiced it and I don't ever plan to practice it. But not every American comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition and is thus not bound - or at least should not be bound given church and state are supposedly separate in the United States - by the laws of the texts of a religion that is not theirs. As a Christian, I wouldn't want to live in an Islamic country where I would be required to live by the laws of a religion that is not mine. In certain Muslim countries I couldn't legally drink alcohol and, if I were woman, I would be subjugated to my husband and have far fewer rights than in any Western democracy. Thankfully the United States is not a theocracy like Iran, and allows people (or should allow them) to be self-determined individuals responsible for their own destiny. The Founding Fathers specifically chose not to attribute an official religion to the United States. The opening words of Amendment I of the Bill of Rights decree: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” The Founding Fathers feared heavy influence of religion on politics, as had been the case in much of Europe up until the late 18th century. They did not wish to declare the United States an Anglican country like England, nor a Calvinist country like Switzerland, nor a Catholic country like France or Spain were at that time. They were well aware of the conflicts in which differences in religious dogma had been used as an excuse for hostilities, and wished the United States to avoid the same fate.

My British friends joke that the United States is the only country outside of the Muslim nations that has an official religion nowadays. Sometimes I’m not so sure it’s a joke. It seems that somewhere along the line, the idea of the separation of church and state has been corrupted somehow. Perhaps it has never been fully realized. Yet in any case, there seems to be a certain overwhelming influence from certain religious groups in the drafting of legislation these days. If I understand the Constitution correctly, that was not the intention of the Founding Fathers.

Joseph Cheek (electronic mail, February 27, 2004)