Homosexual marriage: Let it be

In modern America where one in two black children are born into poverty and single moms and divorcees abound, it could be argued that a loving, stable homosexual couple adopting children isn't the worst thing that could happen. It is a shame though when this argument is used. Other than being a non sequitor, it is degrading to the homosexual population. Homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children because they are just as capable of being parents as heterosexual couples.

In New Jersey this is just the case. Jersey is actually a leader in the nation in allowing homosexual adoption. Yet, homosexual couples are not allowed to be legally bound in marriage. This is odd.

The state has decided that homosexuals as people and pairs are suitable as legally recognized parents for purposes of adoption, custody rights and legal protection, but not as spouses. So instead of children being adopted by loving homosexual married parents, they are adopted by loving homosexual not-allowed-to-be-married parents. Is this best for the children in question?

It seems to me as though the state is either devaluing the life of the child, the institution of parenthood, or its own decision-making capabilities. Surely our nation guards the parent-child relationship more closely than a spouse-spouse relationship. For the most part, adults enter into marriage contracts in sound body and mind attempting to legally confirm a personal bond they wish to share with another person for the rest of their lives. Children, especially babies and newborns, have no say in choosing the person with whom they become indefinitely tied.

Marriage goes beyond personal union in our country. Marriage is the basis for economic and legal rights and representation. And I am not just talking taxes and health insurance. There are actually 1,049 federal protections, benefits and responsibilities possessed only by married people. To deny a homosexual the right to marriage is to deny full citizenship. Considering that it is estimated that 10 percent of the population is homosexual — or almost 30 million Americans — this is a good amount of people actively being denied their rights.

The opposition to homosexual marriage asserts that it is immoral, unnatural, unhealthy, against God and, maybe most importantly, different. Therefore, assuming homosexual activity isn't outlawed to begin with, it certainly should not ever be called marriage. Fine. Call it a civil union as Hawaii and Vermont have and guarantee equal rights.

Who decides what is moral anyway? How can 10 percent of the population be born "unnatural?" As for unhealthy, there is considerable risk with any sort of unprotected sex under the right circumstances. As for God and religious concerns, we all know about separation of church and state (furthermore, the Bible is interpreted in a million different ways and plenty of churches openly and proudly welcome and support homosexual members).

Toward the beginning of the New Jersey State Constitution (and I would imagine many other state constitutions as well) there is a little line that reads: "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are enjoying life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." I suppose New Jersey is now facing the classic question of what exactly "all" means. Robin Williams is a Wilson School major from Greenboro, N.C. He can be reached at awilliam@princeton.edu.