Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

Letters to the Editor

Gay marriage an issue of moral grounds, not rights

In his March 27 editorial, Jeff Wolf '02 sought to defend homosexual marriages as perfectly legitimate and thus deserving of the same legal status as heterosexual unions. To this end, he called upon our collective sense of tolerance and even summoned the ghost of John Locke to provide a sort of historical imperative on which we as good liberals must act. But despite a valiant attempt to seize the moral high ground on this issue, his argument does not convince me that homosexual marriages and traditional marriages should be considered equals.

ADVERTISEMENT

Wolf suggests that tolerance toward homosexuals depends on whether or not we approve of an equal legal status for gay marriages. I would point out that one can question the legality of gay marriages while affirming that homosexuals are entitled to the same basic liberties and opportunities as everyone else. The problem comes when we play around with Wolf's idea that marriage is as fundamental a liberty as religious freedom or speech.

Marriage is not an inalienable right on the same plane with First Amendment freedoms. Rather, it is a contract which must be willingly entered into and can be legally terminated. We do not consider religious freedom or speech to be of this nature because individuals do not need permission to exercise these rights, nor can they be easily annulled. Therefore, we can challenge the idea that homosexual marriage is a right while maintaining that homosexuals themselves are deserving of the constitutional rights given to everyone.

If you are willing to agree that marriage rights are not universal but are within the domain of the legislature to determine, then you must be willing to agree that the general public has a legitimate voice in the process. As far as I can tell, the general public has definitively exercised that voice in numerous referenda on the issue of gay marriage. Now of course, ethical and religious values have played a key role in deciding the outcome of these referenda, but in any deliberation, the voter is free to use whatever criteria he or she desires to come to a conclusion.

So to me, the issue is not whether marriage is a basic right that must be protected in all circumstances, but really whether or not we like the morality of the public in legitimate decision-making processes. Wolf apparently does not like the widespread public opinion that marriage should continue to be defined as the union between a man and a woman. I think that to stand up and say that the morality of the large majority of voters is incorrect and your own morality is somehow intrinsically superior is arrogant at best and despicable at worst.

I am not convinced that homosexuals have some kind of natural right to marriage nor am I impressed by the condemnation of the religious and ethical values of the general public. We can all work toward tolerance in our society, but this means not only accepting that all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, are guaranteed basic rights under the law, but also respecting the right of the public to express its moral values in legal referenda and through its representatives in the legislature. Joel R. Wuthnow '03

Hop off Singer bandwagon

I find it a bit disconcerting that, according to the 'Prince,' Peter Singer is now Princeton's own "Moral Mentor." The March 28 front-page article by Sophia Hollander provided us with breathless accounts of students renouncing consumerism, forgoing meat-eating and giving to the poor — all after only one semester with Singer. And accordingly, as someone who has advanced such noble improvements among students, Singer "takes his role as a moral authority at the University very seriously." Singer sums up in his own words what everyone no doubt thinks about his ideas: "I think it's good obviously, if I can have an impact on people." Obviously.

ADVERTISEMENT

Besides noting Singer's unquestionably beneficial impact on students, the article drips with unctuous praise of his brilliance and moral sensitivity. Singer "cringes when he hears students talking about dining out in expensive restaurants or sees them . . . in high-fashion clothing."

Is Singer's advocacy for the poor and against materialism innovative or unheard of or a newfound area of ethics? No. Caring for the poor and rejecting materialism is nothing new. It's been part of Christianity for the past 2,000 years. Singer represents one brand of modernity's perverted sense of Christian compassion, minus the God. What's the result of Christian ethics without God?

It's the darker side of Singer —abortion, infanticide and euthanasia-on-demand. It's the part that goes practically unmentioned in the article about our Moral Mentor, who "subtly sways his students' views, and in the process, seeks to change their lives." Matthew O'Brien '03

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