Politics, never right

If you missed the Indiana Public Interest Research Group debate last Tuesday, you missed three College Democrats and three College Republicans battling it out on issues such as health care, the economy and gay marriage. Both sides were fairly stereotypical on the issues until the moderator, Associate Vice Provost of Academic Affairs Ray Smith, read the question regarding gay marriage.\nThe Democrats responded first with their mandatory declaration that a law banning homosexual marriage is de jure discrimination. After their round ended, I expected the College Republicans to respond with the usual rhetoric, but their response almost had me out of my seat. They agreed with the Democrats! While I believe the 2004 Republican Party platform when it comes to homosexual marriage is rationally flawed, I expected the College Republicans to at least defend the stance of their party.\nAfter reading the official 2004 Republican Party Platform section subtitled “Protecting Marriage,” I derive two reasons given for a Constitutional ban on homosexual marriage, each being flawed. The first reason derived is that the “well-being of children is best accomplished” by a married mother and father. This could be true, and it would make a great case against gays adopting children if it were true, but using this as a reason for not allowing gays to marry is just irrational. The second reason is essentially that heterosexual marriage is the way it’s been for “millennia of human experience,” which again is mostly true, but proves absolutely nothing.\nIn defense of the committee behind the platform, it was likely trying to keep this platform as brief as possible, and it could’ve listed many more reasons, some of which might’ve been more rational. Nevertheless, I think the Republican Party approaches this issue from the wrong angle.\nNow that I’ve broken apart the Republican platform, let me state my position on the issue. I am against homosexual marriage. Not for the irrational reasons provided by the Republican Party, but because of the core act it promotes. This act goes against my personal and religious beliefs.\nWith that said, who am I to impose my personal or religious morals on others? I accept that different people have different values and beliefs than my own and that this is a free country where my values should not infringe upon the values of others. But that being said, other people should not be allowed to infringe their values upon me. The question you’re likely wondering then is how does allowing homosexual marriage infringe upon my values? \nIt’s fairly simple. Having a government-sanctioned homosexual marriage goes against my values, and thus, the government would be condoning an act that I and my religious beliefs find to be heinous. Of course, the same could be said about not allowing gay marriage, that it would go against the values of gay marriage supporters. Thus, we see both sides have something to lose in how the legislature handles this issue. Neither side is actually wrong or acting purely out of bigotry, but rather they are fighting for their personal values and beliefs. This is exactly what politics is all about.