I wish to respond to the piece you carried in Sunday's Opinion section by Bill Bennett concerning same sex marriage. In my opinion, as pastor in the United Church of Christ, as a psychotherapist, and as a married human being, the comments of Mr. Bennett made little sense and thus I wanted to comment on the problems I found with his reasoning.

In opposing same sex marriage Bennett makes two claims: 1) that allowing gay folks to marry would weaken the institution of marriage and 2) same sex unions are excluded by natural law. Gay marriages would "shatter" traditional notions of marriage. O.K., so what? Enfranchising women and giving them the vote shattered the traditional notion of suffrage in America. I hope most would agree this was not a bad thing. To support his antipathy to gays Bennett asserts that homosexuality was against all of the worlds major religions. This is factually false. The UCC for example has been calling for the acceptance gay marriage since 1979. (We have also ordained women since 1862!)

He further asserts that ssm would confuse young people. What on earth is he talking about? He seems to imply that if it were legal, young people wouldnt know whom to be attracted to or whom to marry? Lurking in his reasoning, I suspect, is the old fear that gays are going to recruit heterosexuals. (And folks wonder why the term homophobia is used.) Further, in an overpopulated world he seems to worry that ssm would place the survival of the human race at stake, since marriages primary function is procreation. The last time I checked one didn't have to be married to get pregnant.

He also says that there are some limits we can not go beyond and ssm is one. For one who supports traditional family values, I guess Mr. Bennett believe that the value of commitment is only important if you are straight. How come? I suppose when abolitionist suggested that slavery was wrong some must have felt that was going over the limit?

Moving to the absurd, Bennett argues that if we allow gays to marry what is next? He does this without explaining or demonstrating the harm of expanding our legal definitions. He merely asserts it. Perhaps his most bizarre leap of non logic comes with his statements that somehow passing ssm legislation would promote promiscuity. Go figure? This argument is a great example of the logic of prejudice. According to this argument, gays can not win. Conservatives criticize gays for being promiscuous and yet when they ask for legal ways to make commitments, they are told they can't because it is unnatural.

Actually, this is the bottom line for Bennett's comments. He doesnt think its natural. Making appeals to conservative-literalistic theology, and natural teleology, Bennett asserts that God has designated that marriage should only be between men and women and that it is apparent by looking at nature. How does he know? The Bible? Appeal to Biblical authority has been used to discriminate against minorities and exclude diversity throughout history. Specifically, a quick look at the legacy of natural law reveals that what is natural has been use to legitimate and rationalize much of the prejudice and cruelty one group has inflicted on another. Further, it has been used to resist scientific as well as social change in much of Western culture. Surgery was once seen as an unnatural violation of the body.

In my opinion, creating legal provisions to allow for same sex marriage is not only the right thing to do to address the serious problem of discrimination against homosexuals, it is also an important step in the evolution of our thinking of how we ought to treat one another as human beings. While we once believed women were not fully entitled to the rights of citizenship, while we once believed that one group had the right to enslave another, these oppressive beliefs have been exposed as false. The time has come to acknowledge that homosexuals are entitled to the full rights of citizenship and that the right to marry is a crucial step in making this enfranchisement a reality.