We are about to write discrimination into our state constitution.

Gay marriage is probably the most divisive issue in America today after abortion. But why is it so divisive?

To get a general idea, take a look at the sides involved in the issue. On one side, it seems it is based on the sincere wish to gain acceptance (both governmental and societal). On the other side, it seems the fight is solely based on specific religious values.

Which is OK — when you’re in a church. You can argue about how much of a sin homosexuality is — you can determine how much of a sin it is compared to others (say, for instance, adultery or eating of shellfish) — but at the end of the day, those issues are best left for churches to deal with.

Proponents of gay marriage are not arguing that specific religious centers be forced into accepting them; they merely want government acceptance of their right to wed one another.

In November, Wisconsin voters will decide whether or not to constitutionally ban gay marriage in the state. The amendment would also ban legal statuses “identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried couples,” meaning that civil unions would also be banned (as well as potentially ridding benefits to couples who are straight but not married).

We are about to write discrimination into our state constitution. Because some of us hold our religious views so strongly, we will soon join a string of states that have passed amendments banning two people from ever expressing their love for one another in a fashion that would grant them benefits — the same benefits that straight couples receive — and for what?

So that the closed-minded people of Wisconsin can stand back and proudly admit that our state does not tolerate diversity.

And the arguments to justify that intolerance are just as bad. Some will argue that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage, but it is an unfounded assumption based on evidence that is non-existent.

Others believe that gay marriage should be banned because two people of the same sex cannot conceive a child together. If that is true, then we must also ban marriages between impotent men and post-menopausal women.

Still others insist that homosexuality does not exist in nature, and thus we must not allow it to become socially acceptable. They ignore the evidence that shows homosexuality is very much a part of the animal kingdom, and thus is part of nature.

Finally, opponents of gay marriage will say that a slippery slope exists which will lead to bestiality, pedophilia and polygamy becoming accepted forms of marriage if we allow gays to wed.

What a silly idea!

Bestiality and homosexuality are not similar in any respect and the idea that they are remotely close is preposterous. The same holds true for pedophilia and polygamy. Gay marriage would be between two consenting adults, thus eliminating any similarities to pedophilia. And polygamy is not an issue because of governmental and insurance benefits. If we allow polygamy to become legal, then the benefits would have to go to a group of people rather than a couple. With gay marriage, it’s still between two people.

Not all religious people in Wisconsin believe that gay marriage should be banned. But to the closed-minded religious individuals who see no distinctions between church and state, I say this to you: stay out of the lives of decent Americans. They are law-abiding citizens. And they deserve our respect.

Vote “No” on the amendment Nov. 7.

> Comments