Letters to the Editor

Gay marriage opens door to equality for all

Dear Editor,

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made a groundbreaking decision, ruling that permitting civil unions and not marriage for same-sex couples is "unconstitutional, inferior and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

Should this ruling stand, it will have vast, long-lasting implications that will reconfirm the equal status of all U.S. citizens as guaranteed by our Constitution. The ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is not an attack on marriage, nor on family; rather, it simply is a valid attempt to redefine these societal institutions.

The time-honored, traditional social constructs of marriage and family are outdated with some 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce, resulting in the extinction of the once all-important nuclear family. Thus, the institute of marriage and concept of family must change in order to accommodate the vast changes in society.

History has shown us that institutions that fail to take into account the changing needs and desires of the population are those that grow weak; those that recognize and accommodate changes in needs grow strong. Take the U.S. military and American colleges, for example. They grew stronger after allowing African-Americans and women to participate.

Similarly, granting same-sex couples the right to marry would strengthen the institution of marriage by allowing it to meet the needs of the true diversity of family structures in America today.

Families have grown diverse in recent decades, thus leading researchers to study how these different familial relationships affect children. It has become clear than the "quality" of a family's relationship is more important that the particular "structure" of families per se.

In other words, the qualities that help a child grow into a good, responsible adult — learning compassion for others, contributing to society and being respectful of others and their differences — do not depend on the sexual orientation of his or her parents, but rather on their parents' ability to provide a loving, stable and happy home.

Further, the Human Rights Campaign states that research has shown children raised by gay and lesbian parents fare just as well on "conventional measures of child development … [including] academic achievement, psychological well-being and social abilities as children raised by heterosexual parents."

For these reasons, several leading child welfare organizations — such as the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers and the American Psychological Association — have issued statements that dismiss assertions that only heterosexual couples are capable of being good parents.

Opposition to same-sex marriage on a religious basis has its place, however, not in the federal or state governments. Those who use religion as a basis for argument in legislation are forgetting the vast number of individuals in the United States who are not Christian, or have no particular religious beliefs and exhibit an utter disregard for first Amendment rights of citizens.

While social institutions may allow for same-sex marriage, this does not mean that religious institutions must follow suite. Marriage, in the eyes of the government, is a contract. Proposed amendments to the Constitution do nothing to protect family values in the most simple interpretation; the Federal Marriage Amendment would make second-class citizens of millions of Americans.

Only one amendment to our Constitution in over 200 years ever has taken rights from U.S. citizens — the 18th amendment, prohibition — only to be repealed soon thereafter. Do we really want to go down that road again?

Rachel Pierce
junior, ISS

Gay marriage opens door to equality for all

Dear Editor,

I think that I speak for all students involved in the College of Education when I say that Kelly Jasper's article printed in the Thursday, Feb. 19 issue of The Breeze was unfair, poorly researched and completely taken out of context. I am a senior and I generally have been pleased with the level of responsible journalism I have seen in The Breeze over the years, but I truly am appalled by this article and feel as though it makes my major — something I am dedicating my life to — look like a joke.

Students who decide to take on the enormous responsibility of teaching children and apply to the College of Education are required to have a minimum grade-point average of 2.5, which they must sustain throughout the course of their involvement with the education program. It is impossible just to "get by" in the College of Education.

Students constantly are evaluated based on their course work and performance in practicum situations. Unsatisfactory performance in the education program is not tolerated and should not be. It is important for us to hold achievement in high regard because who would want their children taught by someone who got C's and D's in college?

The woman who was chosen to be interviewed as a representative of those who are involved in this program is a sophomore who, more than likely, has not begun taking education classes yet. Most IDLS majors do not begin taking education courses until their junior year. The math and science classes that she spoke about in the article are not education classes. They are General Education classes that IDLS majors are required to take, such as GSCI 101 and MATH 108 — the same GenEd classes taken by students in all majors.

Learning how to teach does not involve simply "learning to work together [in groups]" and "learning a lot of practical stuff"according to a source in Jasper's story, but involves developing an extensive knowledge of child development and teaching methods that are grounded in theory. The IDLS major is designed to help those who wish to teach to broaden their knowledge base in a wide variety of subject areas by taking courses that are parts of other majors.

The reasons education students receive more A's are not because our workload is easier or the professors grade in a different way, but because education students are dedicated to learning how to teach and realize that they, one day, will be doing one of the most important jobs in the world. Teachers are underpaid, underappreciated, and certainly do not deserve to have their education portrayed as a joke, as it has been in this article. Please take your job as a journalist as seriously as we take ours as future teachers.

Jane Thomas
senior, IDLS major