Guest Opinion: Prop. 107 infringes upon people’s rights
By Dr. Gilbert D. Shapiro
Arizona Daily Star, Tucson Arizona September 9, 2006
As an inclusive society, we are wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Proposition 107 and current state law unfairly discriminate against our fellow taxpaying citizens who are as ethical and moral as the rest of us.
This failure to find a place at the "marriage table" for this group is a blight on our national character. The laws of marriage can be changed. Homosexuality cannot. Since marriage has been a dynamic, evolving institution for hundreds of years, there is precedent for change.
Staying clear of the argument of whether homosexuality is a choice (as religionists wishfully insist) or genetic (as science is objectively reporting), the essential and undeniable fact of life is this: A certain small percentage of our citizens are gay and will stay gay. Every American has the right, not just the privilege, to the "pursuit of happiness" (Declaration of Independence) and "equal protection of the laws" (Constitution). Finding love with another person and being allowed to express that love in a legally sanctioned marriage is the ultimate "pursuit of happiness" for many Americans.
While marriage per se does not guarantee that any love relationship will last, it certainly provides a solid framework for it to flourish. Additionally, there are legal and psychological benefits that are available only in marriage. Today, our fellow American citizens who happen to be gay are being denied this basic right, except in Massachusetts.
I am unaware of any valid secular arguments against gay marriage, so let's get right to the anti-gay marriage "ground zero": the religious right. This self-anointed and self-serving group asserts that our democracy should be guided by Christian doctrine. To them, homosexuality is a sin because it is a personal choice that is an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22). In permitting gay marriage or in recognizing legal status for these unmarried persons, our government would be sanctioning and magnifying this biblical prohibition.
It is interesting that the religious right, while highlighting this particular abomination, seems to be silent on other similar abominations to God such as remarrying a woman you divorced (Deuteronomy 24:4) or eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:11). It appears this group endorses selective interpretations of Scripture.
The religious right will state that our institution of marriage, with its 50 percent heterosexual divorce rate, is doing just fine. They will remarkably assert that a child in the home of a mismatched, hateful, dysfunctional straight couple heading toward divorce is still preferable to a child in a harmonious, loving and nurturing home of a stable and committed gay couple.
The constitutional protection of basic human rights for all citizens should be the driving force to define marriage in the 21st century. While marriage is addressed in holy books, the guidelines regarding marriage in our secular society should be free from religious influence.
Both the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 and Proposition 107 are unacceptable because they deny fundamental human rights to certain American citizens. Our state and federal constitutions should speak loudly that we are a proud secular nation that welcomes diversity. Voting against this proposition would be a bold and courageous step; an affirmation that all Americans deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
Contact Gilbert D. Shapiro at .
