This is a little paper I did for my U.S. government class a few weeks ago, and I thought I'd post it. The assignment was to write a four-page letter to the president (not Bush specifically, just the president) about some important topic. I chose to do mine on same-sex marriage.

Dear Mr. President,

I write to you out of concern that irrational prejudice and segregation is once again consuming our nation. Time and time again throughout our history, the masses have acted out of fear of what is different. They have set up obstacles that those minorities had to fight for decades to tear down. We have seen it with religion, with race, and with gender, and we are now seeing it again with sexuality.

Today, we celebrate the likes of Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, and others who had the courage to fight against the harmful traditions of our society. But at the time, those celebrated figures were ridiculed by the conservative extremists, just as our modern Rosa Parkses are being ridiculed today. They argued that the Bible forbid equality of men and women. They argued that giving rights to women and people of African descent would harm society. They argued many of the same points they're trying to argue today, and I believe the arguments will ultimately fail just as they did in the past.

I believe that there is no legitimate rationale for singling out opposite-sex couples under law, and I am prepared to contest all of the popular arguments same-sex marriage opponents give for the passing of such legislation:

One popular argument frequently used to rally people against same-sex marriage is that the Bible forbids it. Historically, this argument has been used for many purposes: The world is flat; the Bible says so! Women are inferior to men; the Bible says so! What the Bible allegedly says seems to continually change as time progresses and we learn more about the universe. Metaphors are reinterpreted, sections are retranslated, and suddenly the Bible no longer says that people sneeze in order to release demons inside of us. Not all sects of Christianity believe that the Bible outlaws homosexuality; some argue that the key passages were taken out of context, mistranslated, and misinterpreted, similarly to those previously cited for limiting the rights of other minorities.

Regardless of the Bible's position on the issue, it shouldn't concern the government and law. Complete separation of church and state is of the highest importance in a free society, and it's ultimately for the benefit of all religions. If the government makes a law to promote the beliefs of one religious sect, it inherently undermines the beliefs of another. Legislation made with religious intentions will necessarily be unconstitutional and, for the sake of freedom, shouldn't be considered.

Some argue that the purpose of marriage is for procreation, and since same-sex couples can't procreate by traditional means, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. What they fail to recognize is that we don't ban a sterile individual from marriage, nor do we consider such a marriage immoral. Marriage exists for many other reasons as well, including financial stability and legal recognition of certain rights they wish to share, such as hospital visitation rights.

Some believe that allowing a same-sex couple to have children would destroy the traditional family. But if you look through history, the dynamics of families have been constantly changing. It used to be that divorce was not allowed, and the father worked while the mother stayed home with the kids. Although one could easily argue that having one working parent and one at-home parent is the ideal arrangement, we have seen that restricting households to this often creates more harm than good. Spousal abuse has existed throughout history, but now that divorce is an option, there is something the abused spouse can do to escape the situation. There have been plenty of success stories about a working mom and a stay-at-home dad. Changing the dynamics of the family isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it can certainly be a good thing.

Same-sex marriage opponents often claim that such an environment would be damaging to the children. I remember reading a nice juicy study that claimed this, by comparing homosexual couples living in Mississippi with heterosexual couples living in Massachusetts. However, legitimate studies have consistently shown same-sex couples to be no less effective at raising children than opposite-sex couples. In fact, same-sex couples have the added benefit of every child being planned for — there are no accidental pregnancies, unlike with opposite-sex couples.

Some argue that allowing same-sex couples to wed would present a slippery slope, and that we'll then have to allow people to marry other species. Marriage, like all forms of contract, requires consent by both parties, and one cannot offer consent if he or she is incapable of understanding the terms and consequences of that contract. If a dog can demonstrate a full understanding of the implications of a marriage, then these opponents may have a point, but I somehow doubt it.

Finally, there's the issue of preserving the sanctity of marriage. This is one of the most problematic issues in this topic, because it brings out the fact that the government is playing a role in religion. Marriage is and has always been a religious entity. The primary reason it has historically been recognized by a society's government is because most societies in the past have been of a uniform religion. In a nation that allows for freedom of religion, the government must make laws objectively, not influenced by the dogmas of any religious group. In fact, the First Amendment explicitly prohibits congress from passing a law that deliberately respects the beliefs of a religious establishment (and yes, this is how many of the founding fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, interpreted the establishment clause).

The solution is not to push a definition of marriage, but to pull away from that term entirely. Leave marriage a matter between the individual and whoever chooses to recognize it. Set up a separate legal entity — call it a civil union if you wish — that is independent from the religious concept of marriage. It doesn't have to be any different from the current system, except that rights and benefits should be doled out where they are reasonable, not based on preconceived notions stemming from religion. If a same-sex couple wishes to consensually give each other rights to authorize an autopsy, why not recognize that wish? If a few best buds decide they want to share incomes and file taxes as a single unit, why not recognize that wish?

The bottom line is that the current system doesn't make sense. Why is it easier for a single woman to adopt a child than it is for a stable same-sex couple? If a civil union grants all of the same rights and benefits as a marriage, why keep them separate? Wasn't it ruled that separate is inherently unequal? So what good does it do for society to keep them separate? These questions have no rational answers because the position is not rational. It's basic discrimination, and America is supposed to be better than this.

Someday, students will read in their history books how these heroes fought for gay rights, and they will be ashamed that the government of the time was so resistant to letting go of their prejudices. The new conservative administration will applaud the leaders of the gay rights movement, only to turn around and try to ban sentient artificial intelligence or whatever the issue of the time is. That's the tragedy of history: the cycle is so obvious, but no one seems to notice when it's happening again.

I LOVE YOUR PAPER!!!!!!!! Keep writing.

This is really good

This is sick and wrong and i'm glad the president doesn't think like that. marriage was created between one man and one woman (adam and eve) and it should stay that way. anything else would just be disgusting.

I think eating liver or drinking coffee is disgusting. It doesn't mean I have any right to tell people to not do it. If you want to be allowed to live how you wish to live, allow others to live as they wish to live. You know, that whole "do unto others" thing. Don't be a hypocrite.