In response to the Aug. 30 point/counterpoint on the gay marriage debate by Crista Jackson and Sean McCauley.
It goes back and forth, mostly a semantic argument about who gets to use what word for the government to define their relationship.
Personally, I think needing the government to legitimize your relationship at all is ridiculous.
The better question here is why aren't we looking for a compromise? I don't think marriage (gay or straight) should be the purview of the government. Like it or not, it does have religious symbolism and I believe this does constitute violation of the First Amendment.
The solution is to remove the phrase 'marriage' from all legal documents, return the institution to a purely religious and symbolic institution, and replace the legal aspects that involve the government with a “civil union.” If a gay couple, straight couple, poly-relationship, etc. want a “marriage” because of the symbolism it entails, then I’m sure they will be able to find a religious institution to marry them. If you just want the tax benefits and other legal protections, then there is a civil union for that.
Now we can all get what we want. Calm down, and, please God, stop throwing glitter on people.
From a gay student who would rather this not be a topic in politics right now at all, we have bigger fish to fry.
Meredith Walker
Undergraduate Student
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
