This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

I'm sure there are some who object to gay marriage out of a visceral repugnance to homosexual acts. And many who object due to negative caricatures of gay life. But I don't think the majority of those against gay marriage are motivated by bigotry. I think their objection is primarily moral, based on religious convictions that inform their understanding of homosexuality, marriage and society as a whole. This view sees gay unions as a threat not only to marriage and family but to a moral fabric that protects us all.

To be sure, there are those with religious convictions who aren't offended by gay marriage. Same-sex commitment ceremonies are being performed by the clergy of several Christian denominations. Where it is permitted by law, same-sex weddings are being held in church. These religious Americans don't believe our nation's moral fabric is menaced by gay marriage. We can credit our First Amendment right to religious freedom for the peaceful coexistence of both views.

However, it is civil freedom that is at issue in the gay-marriage debate. No one is advocating, and no court would permit, compelling congregations to bless gay unions. It is the proper scope of civil marriage, as created, licensed and regulated by government, that has come under renewed scrutiny in this controversy.

This controversy has come to Utah most prevalently in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment, Amendment 3. On Nov. 2, we will be asked to vote it up or down. My vote against it will be based on my understanding of homosexuality, marriage, family and society.

I've known openly gay men and women as friends and acquaintances most of my adult life. I've learned that whether a person's sexuality is innate, learned or some combination of both is irrelevant to my getting along with someone. It is how decently he or she treats people that is relevant.

The effect of legalizing same-sex marriage on that most vulnerable segment of society, our children, is reasonably the most concerning outcome of such a change. Of course, same-sex partners are raising children in our community already. I know a couple of such families. These children are wholesome kids, whose behaviors, attitudes and personalities fall well within the norms for their respective ages.

Although mine is a small sampling, it doesn't appear to be unrepresentative. In July of this year, the American Psychological Association published a resolution that states, in part, "There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children," and, "The children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish." (http://www.apa.org);.

The American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on the Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health released a report that states in its summary, "The weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills and attitudes toward parenting. " (Pediatrics, Vol. 109 No. 2 Feb. 2002, PP. 341-344)

There are those who claim to have found differences in parenting between gay and nongay care-givers. But, from what I can gather, the vast majority of research is consistent with the position taken by the aforementioned committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics. I wonder if the parenting skills of every demographic currently permitted to marry could withstand this much scrutiny.

Civil marriage is the public acknowledgment of a private relationship. I do not see how either the public or the private aspects of my marriage would be threatened by granting the right of civil marriage to gay couples. If giving citizenship to the foreign-born hasn't destroyed Americanism, giving the right to own property to those once owned as property hasn't destroyed prosperity, and giving voting right to women hasn't destroyed democracy, then maybe giving homosexuals the right to civil marriage won't destroy marriage.

We may have to change our view of marriage, some may have to see state-sanctioned and church-sanctioned marriage as two even more separate things than they are used to seeing them today, but marriage as an institution, as a way of committing to another, of presenting ourselves to the world, may not only survive a broadened eligibility for membership, but be strengthened by it.

-----

Ross A. Collier is a licensed pharmacist who lives with his wife and their son in the greater Holladay area.

Ross Collier