Response to Associated Press article in Wednesday's Helmsman,"Tennessee House Committee approves gay marriage ban."
State legislators agreed to write discrimination intoTennessee's Constitution, forbidding rights to minority citizens bybanning gay marriage. As if the Patriot Act were not enough, nowgovernment must more directly oppress citizens, an unfortunatedirection in American policy.
Rep. Dunn, the origin of this hateful resolution, seems whollydependent on the dictionary for understanding (a detriment togrowth in any individual or society, opposed to human culturalevolution). To those who would define marriage as a publicexpression of a private commitment between two human beings inlove, his definition seems limited.
Such constraints insult the commitment of marriage. It says thelove of some isn't good enough to warrant value, while BrittanySpears can marry in jest for 55 hours. Gay people seeking marriagelikely take the institution more seriously.
Some argue allowing gay marriage would take away benefits ofmarriage to society. If so, they'll next take away our right todivorce, as many straight unions now end there. If gay couples heldtheir marriages together better or longer, without the levels ofdivorce, abuse, etc. currently seen, would they not improve theinstitution of marriage?
Being straight, I have the right to marry in this state, but Idon't like the small-minded version of marriage they plan to havehere. So I pledge as long as marriage is reserved only for thosewho fit into a preconceived model of a limited human potential andability, I refuse to pay homage to their definitions and willremain defiantly single. I urge anyone having concern for therights of others to do the same. Perhaps when the nation is peopledby bachelors and bachelorettes (in sin and civil unions), they'llbetter appreciate what marriage really is.
Happily Single in Tennessee,
J. Allyn
Sophomore, Physics
