The recent commentary “Same-sex marriage will destroy families” by Michael Heath, while certainly a well written piece, fails to accomplish anything more than providing unfounded rhetoric designed to increase hostility toward those identifying themselves as gay or lesbian. Mr. Heath’s basic argument was that “willful ignorance of the real definition of marriage (one man, one woman, one lifetime) destroys family, devastates children and ruins society.” Mr. Heath reaches this conclusion with reference to another article called “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia” by Stanley Kurtz.

The problem with Mr. Heath’s article is that we are in America, not Scandinavia. The issues brought up by Kurtz regarding marriage in Norway, Sweden and Denmark are specific to Scandinavia, which he clearly states “Marriage is now so weak in Scandinavia that shifts in these rates no longer mean what they would in America” Kurtz himself acknowledges that it is unclear whether gay marriage has led to a lessening importance of “family” or if it is instead part of a larger transition within public opinion on the definition of marriage. The populations within Scandinavia differ from the populations on this side of the Atlantic in that they are far less religious. This is important because when issues such as gay marriage are discussed in the public forum, people are far less likely to base their justification for or against the issue on an argument founded in religious doctrine alone. Instead, they tend to focus on arguments that promote the most equality within its citizenry. Let me stress that this does not necessarily mean one basis of argument is superior to another, only that there are serious cultural differences between the two regions, a difference that is clearly stated and stressed by Kurtz himself, while overlooked by Mr. Heath.

This brings us to the other problem with Mr. Heath’s article: While he claims that gay marriage will destroy family, devastate children and ruin society, he fails to provide any evidence to support this. With regards to the family being destroyed, the best Mr. Heath can provide is “a further separation of marriage from parenthood would reverse the healthy turn away from single-parenting.” Mr. Heath’s conclusion is based on the opinion that the purpose of marriage is for procreation only. According to Mr. Heath’s reasoning, those who are unable or unwilling to become parents have no need to marry.

As far as children being devastated because of the weakening of the family unit, please refer to the U.N. report “An overview of child well-being in rich countries.” In this report, which looks at several dimensions including health and safety, educational well-being, and family and peer relationships, one will find that not only is the current status of child well-being in the United States ranked 20 of 21 nations, but the Scandinavian countries are all within the top seven. Furthermore, the study also found that young people living in single-parent homes is larger in the U.S. than any Scandinavian country, despite the large population of U.S. citizens that are opposed to gay marriage. It would seem, then, that child well-being, which should be a priority to those promoting “family cohesiveness,” has nothing to do with whether or not that society recognizes gay marriage.

The remaining paragraphs of Mr. Heath’s article was some of the finest religious-based hate I have seen in print for some time. According to Mr. Heath the “radical homosexual lobby owns the Maine Democratic Party and a good chunk of the Maine Republican Party,” adding that the homosexual lobby is “Maine’s most powerful immoral group”. This type of rhetoric may sound familiar to some, as it was used to convince a large population of German citizens that their internal problems were due to a secret Jewish conspiracy. An interesting perspective from the executive director of the Christian Civic League.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that Maine’s gay lobby has hijacked Maine politics in the way that Mr. Heath believes. Should this not raise more questions on the health of our current political system, that it can be dominated by a single, seemingly unpopular lobby? If this is the state of our politics, we should feel lucky it has not become dominated by a fanatical religious sect.

The topic of gay marriage is not going away. It will continue to be a heated and debated topic for Mainers. I hope that when it comes to the forefront again, we as citizens are able to discuss it using well thought out and factually based reason rather than simply using bumper sticker catch phrases to justify our actions.

Randy Lautz is a student at the University of Maine in Orono.