Dear Editor:

In response to Dmitry Chernikov’s argumentative opinion column, “Gay’s can’t love, shouldn’t get married,” we raise legitimate concerns. Most importantly, the state, no matter what a person’s view is, is a legal governing body that legitimizes people’s actions and make them lawful. The state is currently saying that it is unlawful for two people of the same physical gender to marry. The argument Mr. Chernikov makes is a moral one. The state, however, should remain separate from divine law and instead focus on positive law. Positive law establishes boundaries by which people must abide. Supporters of gay marriage seek legal support from the state (“a corrupt body”) so that they can pursue their happiness without interference from biased individuals or a vocal minority.

Continuing on the subject of divine and positive law, a strong separation is necessary. Natural law is void here. We see individual morals stemming from biblical doctrine in the case of gay rights and gay marriage. However, governments run by divine law have “traditionally” resulted in the genocide and extermination of humans unresponsive to the governments “moral values.”

Positive law in effect helps to create and establish equality for all, not just for one portion of the population. It does not give it to any one group on the basis of what the governing body deems moral, rather it establishes a base that all of its citizens be granted the same rights universally within its political borders.

Gay marriage is simply a way to grant homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals in the eyes of the state when it comes to marriage. This in no way reflects marriage in a religious connotation, rather a civil marriage, which are quite frequent in many states and void of all things theocratic, and helps to establish partner and tax benefits to those who wish to share their life together. In no way, shape or form do these unions represent any sort of religious practice, unless those who participate in the union wish to have their denomination give sanction.

No matter what a person’s morals may be, they are subject to disagreement by those who do not share them. This is where the equal protection comes in, giving the same rights and freedoms to any person regardless of what their personal morals may be, in order to safeguard and protect their rights as a citizen to have them. The difference of morals and state opinions is one of the cornerstones that this country was founded on, and although the structure and framework has changed and been modified, in its core it holds all those on equal grounds and entitles them to have the guaranteed right to believe whatever they wish to believe. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not based on whatever morals you have, that does not mean homosexuals don’t have the right to marry in the eyes of the state. You may disagree and argue with that for as long as you wish, but in the foundation laid forth in the creation of equal protection, every citizen gay or straight has the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness whether it is with a man or a woman, heterosexual or homosexual.

Finally, your arguments cannot be respected until you prove gay marriage and the expansion of gay rights wrongs or threatens your existence. The moral dilemma here comes from biased upbringings. The facts are real. Gay marriage does not harm anyone and will ultimately fuel a flat economy (as many studies have shown). Economist Thomas Sowell certainly had it wrong when he said that marriage is a restriction of rights rather than an extension of them. We see married couples receiving hundreds of benefits that gay partners cannot receive including breaks in inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes. Gay rights are non-threatening based on positive law, and will result in inalienable liberties that Americans, and all people for that matter, are born with and ultimately deserve.

Christopher A. Taylor and James J. Lerer

Pride! Kent