Helping gay marriage

Once again, I'm proud to be a Jersey girl.

No, I'm not talking about our fabulous diners, our convenient proximity to Manhattan and Philly or our nationally renowned tomato crop. New Jersey recently passed landmark legislation giving gays and lesbians the same rights as heterosexuals in terms of relationship unions, and equality for all is a step forward for our society.

While lawmakers are left to find a term for this new legislation within 180 days (whether it be same-sex union or rewriting existing marriage laws to include homosexual couplings), the main point is clear: New Jersey is one of a minority of states that chose to deal with this issue, and made the right decision.

Aside from the obvious impact this will have on gay New Jerseyans, the national impact is potentially great as well. Unlike the Massachusetts ruling, couples do not have to be residents of New Jersey to take advantage of the new partnership rights laws, meaning a couple from any other state could come to New Jersey, get married and then subsequently challenge their own state's rulings.

Matt Daniels, president of the Virginia-based Alliance for Marriage, a group pushing for an amendment to the federal Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage, said, "New Jersey is a stepping stone. It's not about New Jersey." He's right - similar cases are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland, according to CNN.

The religious right must be having a collective coronary. Rights for homos (or fags, or worse)?? they gasp. Why, the very sanctity of the institution of marriage is destroyed!

The so-called "sanctity" of marriage has been destroyed in many ways that have nothing to do with homosexuals. Take the ridiculously high divorce rate of the baby boomer generation. Couples are not only getting divorced more often, but often have children affected by the decision.

The current trend seems to point to parents waiting until their children get to college, raising the question as to when did the marriage really, truly end in the emotional sense, further cheapening the "'til death do us part," "eternal love" vows.

Other opponents say gay couples cannot reproduce, so they should not receive benefits married couples do. But there are more than enough children in the world who need good homes. Homosexual couples are often financially secure and desperately willing to take these children into their homes, an act for which they - and other people who adopt - should be commended.

A key point is that homosexuals are asking for equal rights. Not special, not different, not unique rights - simply the rights every other citizen has. In an American studies class, we recently watched a film called, Ballot Measure 9, where as recently as 1992, states such as Oregon and Colorado tried to pass ballot initiatives to make discrimination against gays legal. One particularly poignant scene showed the charred remains of a house in which two gays were murdered by a Molotov cocktail.

All gay people want is equality, just like blacks did in the 1960s and women did in the 1970s. What is so wrong with giving gays the right to inherit their partner's property, to give them tax breaks, to make decisions on their partner's health?

Straight people can still get married; why does it matter if gays do? Christianity is so intent on universal love and tolerance for all, so why do some preach hate and intolerance? Gay activists in the documentary mentioned that the Bible used to justify all sorts of things, such as the subjugation of women and slavery ... does this make it right to justify killing or discrimination against homosexuals?

New Jersey may have a corrupt government, crappy roads and a (generally undeserved) reputation as a punchline, but they got something right this time. I wholeheartedly support this measure, because, as one of the documentary slogans goes, "I am straight, but not narrow."

Nikkee Porcaro is a senior journalism major. She can be reached at cole120@umd.edu.