Letter to the editor

The need for equal protection

To the Editor:

Last Thursday, I attended Penn Forum's debate, "Gay Marriage: Civil Right or Moral Wrong." The discussion addressed the right for the government to recognize a union between same-sex couples. Speaking in opposition to the matter, Bill Devlin of the Urban Family Council, in essence, based his argument on religious notions of what is biblically "natural" versus sinful, remarking that homosexuals indeed choose their orientation. Too nervous to let my voice be heard, I sat helpless, knowing that a sizeable portion of Americans, if not a majority, has similar impressions of me and my lifestyle.

After the discussion, a student asked me if I would be content with civil union status: "Why is the word 'marriage' so important?" I wanted to ask him if he thought it would be fair to have train cars that separate whites and blacks or to reinstate segregation in schools as they were before the 1960s. Of course his answer would be no, but why do people insist that "separate but equal" be despicable in racial terms but completely justifiable in sexual orientation terms? Brown v. Board of Education destroyed the absurd "separate but equal," and I don't want to see our country regress to the times of Plessy v. Ferguson.

My right to marry is an equal protection issue. I am tired of people thinking that being gay means living a life with frivolous sexual encounters and unstable relationships that never actually materialize into something with substantial longevity. Homosexuality is not synonymous with solitude, and I am just as capable of participating in a relationship based on trust and love as anyone else. The fact that the government does not legitimize certain relationships implies a sense of inferiority; gay couples are not real couples, people who are gay are not meant to have families. This is discriminatory logic that only perpetuates false stereotypes.

Finally, the United States is catching up with much of the Western world. After the Supreme Court decriminalized sodomy last summer in Lawrence v. Texas, a new momentum of gay rights awareness was set off. And in the wake of another move by the courts to acknowledge legal injustices, the Bush administration and other Republicans shrewdly conceived of the only way to impede judicial intervention: a constitutional amendment. They want to solve the issue democratically, acknowledging that in the past, the courts have been the bodies driving social change. Would the majority of Americans have voted against an amendment to integrate schools in the 1950s? I'm not sure, but that matter was rightfully resolved by justices who prudently deciphered the intentions of the founding fathers. Our past tells us that the democratic process catches up with the courts on such issues regarding equal protection -- and I don't want Bible Belt Americans injecting their religious rhetoric on my separated-church-and-state constitution.

I would like to think that sharing my life with someone and raising a family would be a contribution to society. After having the perfect model, I know I will be a great father to my kids. But there's a movement out there that thinks otherwise. This November, you have a say.

Whom do you want interpreting our Constitution?

Greg Bryda

College and Wharton '06

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.