Artwork by
Dennis Murphy

For the students, by the students

I Do
Nicki Busdieker, Corner Post Staff

May 4, 2004 - Who knew that those two little words could stir up so much controversy? Those two words are the words answered by two individuals ready to devote eternity with one another. The argument at the heart of the controversy is what defines marriage and who defines marriage. When two individuals are married, they are then entitled to a number of benefits by the government.

According to the Rainbow Alliance, "Gay people are not interested in changing the religious definition of marriage. Gay people are committed to expanding the protection of the civil definition of marriage to include same-sex couples so that gay couples can enjoy the same benefits, rights, and privileges that flow from marriage."

Married couples receive benefits in areas such as: shared taxes, next-of-kin privileges, wrongful death benefits, pensions and health insurance, social security, inheritance, and immigration just to name a few.

Webster Dictionary defines married as "being a husband and wife" yet a marriage is defined as a "close union."

"Marriage does not hold a specific denotation," junior Agriculture Economics major Kristen Durham said. "The eyes of the law need to be flexible between two people and religion should decide how rights are allocated."

34 states have current legislation that states that they will not recognize same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

"It was brought up that this is only the second time that there might be a constitutional amendment with the sole purpose of limiting people's rights," Durham said. "The first was prohibition and it was repealed."

"People can make their own choices," freshman mechanical and aerospace engineering major Jeff Snyder said. "Who am I to say what people can or cannot do?"

Even though according to the Rainbow Alliance they "are not interested in changing the religious definition" they are bringing into question the role of religion in legislation and where is the separation of church and state?
Religion isn't allowed in school, it isn't allowed on government grounds, some don't want it in the Pledge of Allegiance, but we can put it in legislation to take away someone's rights as a free American? The argument is far from finished and there is no way of knowing where things will lead. It is amazing what two little words can do.

Back to archive