I would like to respond to Rod Dreher's column, "Secular Liberalism As Consensus Threatens Traditionalist Values," (CT, April 7).
The idea that marriage is a religious institution and therefore not subject to the public's notions of equality becomes revocable when we examine the social and legal benefits that arrive with marriage. The Constitution offers even greater clarity as to legislation in support of religious institutions. There is no denying the insurance and tax benefits that come attached to this "religious" institution and the very exclusive group it is granted to.
In short, marriage has become a social privilege and if Traditionalists were being consistent then they would note that the argument made against gay marriage not only prohibits gay couples from marrying but also and not limited to, interracial couples, agnostics and atheists.
It has long been argued that marriage is a Christian Institution stemming from the Bible, which some interpret as saying homosexuality is wrong. The Bible also never extends the institution of marriage to people of other faiths or no faith at all which mean that Biblically, agnostics and atheists should not be able to marry under this very rigid exhortation.
Agnostics are not part of organized religion and thus have no institution of marriage and atheists do not believe in God, which means they cannot have a relationship ordained by one.
What is more, these same individuals against gay marriage for Biblical reasons will often say that "traditional" relationships have always been heterosexual despite the overwhelming number of societies that practiced and embraced homosexuality before the extension of Christiandom.
One might also argue that if you wanted to be real traditional, American style, then you would be forced to revert to honoring laws of miscegenation which were functional well into the 20th century and regarded interracial marriage as illegal and "immoral." Sound familiar? The arm of this Traditionalist argument extends far beyond gay couples.
The real issue here is that if marriage were merely a religious institution, then married couples would receive nothing more than a certificate of marriage at their ceremony and nothing else. There would be no extension of the battery of legal and social benefits that come with it today.
This brings me to my final point which elucidates on the concept of the separation of church and state.
The First Amendment of our Bill of Rights makes an express point to congress and our governments in state that it cannot make laws respecting an establishment of religion.
Marriage is an establishment of religion which means state Congresses cannot actually legislate in favor for or against it.
These things being said, it is made clear that the appropriate argument for gay marriage and rights stipulate that either marriage be made purely religious without legal and social benefits to which then it can be made exclusive, or if it is going to remain a social privilege in the United States then it is illegal on the part of the state governments to show support for or against marriage as an institution, which includes legislating against marriage for gay couples.
John L. Driess
sophomore, biological sciences