All men are created equal

The premise of one of last week's Opinions columns suggested that the election of Barack Obama to the seat of the presidency cast a shadow on the conservative referendum in three states that passed legislation forbidding marriage between homosexuals.

While I do find this to be a very accurate analysis, the reasons provided by the staff writer are not only incredibly misleading, but both hurtful and veiled by ignorance.

Entering into marriage certainly carries its advantages and disadvantages. However, it is a hurtful generalization to suggest that homosexual couples seek marriage as a political statement.

This suggests homosexuals cannot love one another. Civil unions (or domestic partnerships in some states) that grant rights equal to marriage are only offered in California, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oregon, and the District of Columbia. These unions are not recognized by the federal government and are not recognized outside those states, with few exceptions.

According to the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996, the 1,138 rights granted by the federal government to married persons DOES NOT extend to civil unions. That is a BIG deal.

Suggesting that homosexuals "do not have the tendency for life-long monogamy that straight people have," is incredibly hurtful and an unnecessary ad homonym attack.

It is absurd to suggest that homosexuals will abandon the right of marriage after it has been won because, coupled with their suggested infidelity, is the staggering statistic that 40 to 60 percent of new marriages end in divorce.

According to most the recent Gallup Polls, 51 percent of Americans believe homosexual relations are NOT immoral, and 56 percent of Americans believe that homosexual relations should be legal.

However, 56 percent of Americans believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and woman. These statistics seem to suggest that Americans are clinging to the word "marriage," possibly for its religious connotations. Something the government is constitutionally bound from endorsing.

Regardless of whether or not religious zealots are a minority, the pervasiveness of faith and religious symbols extends beyond them.

I do agree that Americans have been conditioned to tolerate rather than accept. However, I am keen on these definitions.

Tolerance only requires that you do not act out against something you disagree with. Acceptance is quite different from embracing.

I can accept that homosexuals love each other and want to celebrate their love with marriage just like a heterosexual couple.

This does not mean that I have to marry a man or celebrate with them. Simply, I accept that they are humans, that they are endowed with rights that I too celebrate, such as the freedom of speech and religion.

I do not simply tolerate those first 10 Amendments. I accept them. I accept the fact that every citizen of this country is entitled to them.

To claim that the mainstreaming of same-sex marriage would lead to a mainstreaming of "Bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, or scatology" is an absolutely pathetic argument. I cannot trace its logic other than the person putting forth this claim not only does not tolerate homosexuality, but views it as a part of a culture spiraling downwards in its morals to the abyss of Satan.

With regards to the rest of the world, since when did the United States settle for anything but first?

Perhaps you are okay with a country behind the times. I however do not tolerate that, and I accept that we live in a country with a promise and a dream that "All Men Are Created Equal."