Voters should reject Proposition 2, the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.
The Daily News has opposed this idea for a long time.
We’ve got one reason: Government should stay out of the private lives of people.
Before you get caught up in the rhetoric of this debate, ask a simple question. What, exactly, is the compelling reason for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
The author of the proposition, State Rep. Warren Chisum, says it’s needed to protect the family.
It’s a familiar argument. But it’s not a good one.
Yes, a high percentage of marriages end in divorce.
Yes, deadbeat parents don’t pay child support.
Yes, almost a third of the children born today are born out of wedlock.
Yes, an alarming number of traditional families suffer from abuse and violence.
Those are sad facts about the American family.
But how can anyone presume that gays and lesbians are responsible?
Don’t all those facts reflect on the behavior of heterosexual people, rather than on homosexual people?
Think about the claim that failing to pass this amendment will undermine marriage. Does anyone really foresee that heterosexual men and women will stop marrying?
And if these words on paper aren’t going to “protect the family,” what good, exactly, will they do?
Isn’t the sad truth here that this is just another effort by a majority — in this case heterosexual people — to pass discriminatory laws against a minority — in this case homosexual people?
Government should afford gay people the same rights that other people have.
Government should not guarantee rights to some — and then make them off limits to others.
Government should not pass laws that restrict personal freedom. When government must restrict someone’s freedom, there ought to be a compelling reason for doing so. The reasons given in favor of a ban on gay marriage don’t meet a very high standard for clear thought. They’re not even close to compelling.
