States should not legislate morality by outlawing gay marriage

In the spring when the weather is inviting, it is especially difficult to sit down and concentrate on the work at hand. As a result, I found myself zoning in and out of my reading more than usual.

I was reading John Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration" for a politics class I'm taking. I was struggling to stay awake when a passage caught my eye: "But Idolatry (say some) is a sin, and therefore not to be tolerated. If they said it were therefore to be avoided, the Inference were good. But it does not follow, that because it is a sin it ought therefore to be punished by the Magistrate. The reason is because they are not prejudicial to other mens Rights, nor do they break the publick Peace of Societies."

After reading this, I glanced over at the newspaper. It contained two articles of interest: The first outlined the March 16 decision by the Vermont House of Representatives to approve a bill creating civil unions for gay couples. The second discussed California's controversial Proposition 22, which, in early March, revised the California Family Code to say that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

It's easy to convince yourself that a liberal arts education is wholly impractical — I've done it before, and I find it a tempting conclusion. But at their best, works by Locke and other long-dead writers can form attitudes. They mold our beliefs and shape the way we act.

In my case, I had been struggling with the issue of gay marriage. On the one hand, as a reader wrote to The New York Times on March 4, "Marriage is not a perfect institution, but there is no reason to redefine, confuse and compromise it by legalizing gay marriage; the well-being of our society hinges on the strength of our families."

On the other hand, it is argued, homosexuals should be treated no differently than heterosexuals, and should have the option of marriage under the law. Both sides offer a reasonable view, so how do we decide where to stand? John Locke, writing on the subject of religious tolerance, hints at a solution. If we substitute the phrase "gay marriage" for "Idolatry" in the excerpt from his letter above, we find a very plausible reason to oppose Proposition 22 and applaud the bill in Vermont. Locke would urge us to ignore the question of gay marriages' "sinfulness," (though this judgement underlies much anti-gay rhetoric), and ask whether it would affect the rights of others and whether it would disrupt the stability of society.

The first concern can be dismissed easily. Only the rights of the couples' (adopted) children would be affected by gay marriages. But this is a separate issue — even if gay marriage were legalized, the rearing of children by gay couples could still be barred.

The second concern is more valid. Isn't it possible that by allowing gay couples to get married, we are in some way compromising the respected nature of marriage? I hope the word "respected" provokes a chuckle. Nowadays, when divorce seems to be the norm, and single parents are often forced to raise their kids on meager incomes, nuclear families and "sacred" marriages are often the exception to the rule.

Furthermore, how exactly does gay marriage "devalue" the institution of marriage? It is foolish to insist that marriage has always been between a man and a woman and is therefore the best arrangement.

Why is it considered a good arrangement? Perhaps because it creates a stable, loving relationship that helps foster values and raise children. But if that's so, what precludes gay couples from achieving those same lofty goals?

Furthermore, interracial marriages, which are now widely accepted — even at Bob Jones University — were opposed for the same reasons that gay marriages are opposed now. This should make us very wary of the anti-gay marriage argument. In truth, violence on television is more of a disruption to society than gay marriage.

We are entitled to disapprove of gay marriage; we may even think it's sinful. But with a nod to Locke, we should acknowledge that there is no good reason to outlaw it. If this is a valid and well-supported conclusion, which I strongly believe it is, then we ought to be worried.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Despite the success in Vermont, more than 30 states have already passed bills that prohibit gay marriage and refuse to recognize gay marriages that were performed elsewhere. This is a troubling form of intolerance. But if there is one lesson Locke tried to teach us, it is that despite our moral objections, we must still embrace tolerance. Jeff Wolf is from Chevy Chase, Md. He can be reached at jeffwolf@princeton.edu.