Gay rights are civil rights

Eric Naing

Californa Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to veto legislation passed by California's state legislature that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry. Instead of respecting the democratic process, he will stop legislation from a democratically elected body claiming that "the matter should be decided by California's courts."

Back in 2000, Californians passed Proposition 22, which was about preventing marriages in other states from being recognized in California. Proposition 22 was not about legalizing same-sex marriage. Legislation actually banning gay marriage will not be voted on in the state until 2006 at the earliest.

So what does this all mean? The democratic process did work and sided squarely on the side of gay rights. The democratically elected California state legislature, unprompted by any court, voted to allow same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, Gov. Schwarzenegger chose to stand in the way of democracy and civil rights with his veto.

Opponents of gay rights no longer have a leg to stand on. In Massachusetts they condemned "activist" courts for supporting gay rights, but now in California they attacked an elected legislature saying the issue should be left to the courts. Hypocrisy runs deep when bigotry is your guide.

There is no Constitutional argument against gay rights. Opponents of gay marriage wish to deny gays equal rights under the law - pure and simple. The heart of this debate is not whether you think gays should marry; it is whether you support equal rights.

The countless arguments for allowing gay marriage have been repeated ad nauseam (the fact that homosexuality is well-documented in other organisms, Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage, the fact that the Bible not only disapproves of gay sex but also calls eating shellfish and premarital sex abominations). In the end, it all comes down to whether you support civil rights or whether you oppose homosexuality and equal rights.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle or a choice, it is simply who you are. Anyone who opposes gays or gay rights is attacking a significant percentage of the population for something they cannot control. Gay people are everywhere. They are not hurting anyone and are not undermining any institutions.

Same-sex rights are the next step in the civil rights movement. Denying gay people equal rights is no better than denying women or blacks equal rights. Arnold and gay rights opponents are standing in the way of civil rights and history will not forget that.

Protect traditional values

Elie Dvorin

The California legislature just took a historic step when it became the first elected body to approve the passage of a bill that would legalize gay marriage. Nonetheless, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, promised to veto this bill. Schwarzenegger's veto is out of respect for the people of California, who had previously voted in favor of a proposition that defined marriage as one man and one woman.

Eleven other states have voted to amend their constitutions to ban gay marriage. Every time radical judges across the country look to force gay marriage on the people, the voters stand up and reinforce their will. Even in liberal states like California and Oregon, the voters have turned down gay marriage, time and time again.

What the majority of the public understands (that radical judges do not) is that an opposition to gay marriage is not discriminatory - it's healthy social policy. Marriage between one man and one woman is the most stable foundation for raising a family. Marriage is primarily designed for the benefit of children and the family unit in general, and secondarily for the benefit of the married couple. Altering the definition of marriage to include gay couples does nothing to enhance the familial structure, and might even do damage to it. At a time when the social fabric of our nation is unraveling, we need to reinforce the traditional family values.

Erasing the traditional definition of marriage will irrevocably do significant harm to traditional values. If we alter the definition of marriage to include "two people" instead of "one man and one woman," what's to stop us from changing it further to include "three people" or "two living beings?" At first glance, this slippery slope argument may seem implausible, but the same equal protection clause that has been used to argue for gay marriage has been used in court to argue for polygamy rights.

Marriage is not a universal right guaranteed to all people. It is a right that is contingent on a behavioral choice. Just as it would be absurd for a person who doesn't pay taxes to demand a tax refund, it is equally absurd for someone who doesn't choose a partner of the opposite sex to demand a marriage license.

What Schwarzenegger is doing in California will be demonized by radical ideologues looking to impose their minority will on the entire American public. But what he's doing is protecting the will of the majority. And this time, the majority got it right.