While I agree with the Emerald’s editorial that President Bush and conservatives in Congress are cynically using the federal marriage amendment as a political ploy, I disagree with other pieces of your argument (“Ban on gay marriage is not the way to unify U.S.,” ODE June 6).
The editorial criticizes the federal marriage amendment as politically divisive. I agree. However, the federal marriage amendment was only introduced after the gay-rights movement pushed to change the definition of marriage. Proponents of same-sex marriage started this debate, yet the editorial does not criticize them for fostering divisiveness. If proponents of same-sex marriage can make an argument without being labeled divisive, then surely opponents of same-sex marriage should be allowed to articulate a counter-argument without receiving that label.
Secondly, the editorial states that “the federal government, however, has no right nor jurisdiction to define which roots of marriage should be considered ‘natural.’” This is a very bold argument. The federal marriage amendment is a proposed constitutional amendment, meaning it will only pass with a two- thirds vote in both houses of Congress as well as approval by three-quarters of the states. This editorial argues that the U.S. Congress and state legislatures have neither the right nor jurisdiction to define marriage. If the elected representatives of the American people have neither the right nor jurisdiction to define marriage, then who has such a right? If the Emerald does not believe democratically elected institutions have the right to define marriage, then it should candidly offer a plan for rewriting the U.S. Constitution.
Joe Bailey
Sophomore economics major