The gay marriage issue is one that we will be telling ourchildren and grandchildren about in the years to come.

It’s just like my grandparents telling me about theirexperiences during the civil rights movement of the ‘60s and‘70s.

Yes, I am drawing parallels between civil rights and gay rights,in the undeniable truth that our political institutions are denyingrights to a group of people that are not being denied to another.How can we morally and worse yet, legally allow this tocontinue?

Looking back on the civil rights movement, blacks were notconsidered equal to whites, which now seems absolutely ridiculous.I look back and think, “Wow, they actually believedthat?”

Now I sit in the midst of a whirling storm of controversysurrounding the gay marriage debate and think how ignorant we aregoing to appear to the future generations.

As a straight, white, Christian woman, I am humiliated by thereputation my peers are earning.

My small voice must be heard.

Gays have already been persecuted enough. Hate letters and deaththreats were issued to some of my friends here on the SMU campus,simply because of their sexuality.

I have family and friends who are homosexual. They want nothingmore than to be in a loving and committed relationship. And to havethat relationship validated by public institutions. Is thereanything criminal in this desire? Is there anything harmful in thisdesire? No.

Those who would have the right of marriage denied to homosexualsare fearful of the “repercussions” that mightresult.

I have heard arguments that if gay marriage is allowed, next wewill be allowing pedophilia. This is absolutely ridiculous.Pedophilia is an attack by a stronger party (an adult) on a weakerparty (a child). This is in no way similar to a loving, consensualrelationship between two adults. The parallel cannot even befathomed.

I am asking you, the reader, regardless of your view on themorality of homosexuality, or your political or religious opinion,to open your mind for a moment and think logically. If we allow theright of marriage to homosexuals, how will the sanctity of marriagebe destroyed?

The vows will still be the same, and the commitment will stillbe expected.

In today’s society of heterosexual “startermarriages,” and the Britney Spears of the world making a jokeof the institution, my gut instinct is that the situation can onlybe improved.

This is by opening up the right of marriage to committedhomosexual adults.

Will there be abuses of this right? Yes.

But is this any different from the countless abuses against theinstitution of marriage today? No.

Heterosexuals have the right, under law, to enter into marriageand to choose whether or not to respect that right. It is certainlynot the government’s right to decide how an entire group ofpeople will treat the right of marriage. As for amending theConstitution, don’t get me started. OK, I’ve alreadystarted.

Here goes …

The Constitution, as a body, inherently grants rights to people.We are the freest nation in the world, with a huge emphasis placedon individual rights. Over the history of our great nation, we havecontinually lifted restrictions on rights of groups.

There were the rights of blacks and other minorities such aswomen. Now, we are facing the issue of lifting a restriction on therights of another group: homosexuals. By using the Constitution asa tool to deny rights, we will abuse the historical purpose ofConstitutional amendments.

If you believe their behavior is “sinful,” pleaseremember that blacks were once considered inherently sinful solelyon the basis of their dark skin color. The excuse of sinfulness wasonce used to deny rights to blacks, and it is being used again todeny rights to gays.

The theory that gays “choose” to be gay is one ofthe most confusing arguments out there, in my opinion. Why on earthwould one choose a lifestyle that is shunned by the public thenexpose oneself to discrimination, threats, and violence?

Gay adolescents comprise a disproportionate majority of thosewho attempt suicide. They are obviously so pleased with theirdecision to become gay that they feel the need to take their life(dripping with sarcasm).

So, enough with the “choose to sin” issue.Let’s start looking at our homosexual neighbors with therespect that they deserve, not as “gays” but asindividuals. People who fear gay marriage do not have a completepicture of who gay people are.

Homosexuality is only a part of an identity, just asheterosexuality is.

I do not define myself foremost by the fact that I find mensexually attractive, nor do most heterosexuals.

Placing so much emphasis on the issue of homosexual marriage isforcing homosexuals to define themselves primarily by theirsexuality, as a defense mechanism. (Think about the black pridemovements of the civil rights era; blacks are still proud to beblack, but generally race does not consume their identity.)

Without such hoopla surrounding the issue, with equal rightsguaranteed to gays and straights alike, homosexuals could definethemselves as students, parents, brothers, sisters, husbands,wives, artists … whatever it is that makes them anindividual.

Christina Leone is a senior psychology major and a studentALLY. She may be reached at [email protected].