Off the Beat: Traditional Values?

The California Supreme Court voided nearly 4,000 gay marriages earlier this month, managing to carefully sidestep the true controversy over gay marriage.

The court struck down the marriages because San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom apparently overstepped his authority when allowing the marriages.

This ruling may come to some as a fair judgment based purely on the merits of the law, but I was disappointed with the judges, who once again shied away from a tough decision and took the easiest way out of the case.

It's becoming a far too common occurrence: politicians, public figures-even some celebrities-are refusing to weigh in on the hot topics. Instead, all we hear are G-rated, run-of-the-mill comments.

Even Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a man who claims to represent the left side of the political spectrum, will only admit to supporting civil unions, while still claiming to believe a marriage is between a man and a woman.

It seems nearly all politicians are making political debates luke-warm because they lack the backbone to admit what forces drive their positions.

Many leaders allege the same-sex marriage debate is about tradition, not religion. But nothing in our country has a tradition strong enough to transcend all religious, socioeconomic and racial boundaries. Why are we suddenly throwing a blanket "tradition" into the mix when few American traditions exist in the first place?

In June, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney testified in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the proposed constitutional amendment about same-sex unions, framing the debate as purely societal.

"It is a societal issue," he said. "It encompasses the preservation of a structure that has formed the basis of all known successful civilizations."

He asserts the controversy isn't about religion, it's about tradition. It's about values. It's about everything except religion.

Bullshit. The debate could not be more religious.

There exist no studies, no data, virtually nothing to suggest that marriage should be between a man and woman except for religious texts.

A short five-minute troll on the Internet proves that marriage has not always been rooted in a union between a man and a woman.

Same-sex unions were permitted in Egypt, Sparta, and Mesopotamia, among others, well before the traditional "West" came to be.

A little research reveals the assertion that marriage has "traditionally" been between a man and a woman is short on historical evidence, and relies instead on religious evidence.

Clear condemnations of same-sex relationships appear to be found only in religious texts.

The Old Testament's Book of Leviticus states homosexuality is an "abomination" worthy of death. This reference seems to be the driving force behind opposition to same-sex marriages.

But our country was founded on the principle that church and state should be separate. Our leaders' religious values simply should not drive our laws.

This is not to say that religious faith is not okay in this debate: it is.

But the debate is really about religion, not tradition. It's time for people to fess up to their beliefs and stop couching the issue in a make-believe traditional sense of marriage.

I never thought I would use George W. Bush as an example of anything good, but I have to give it to him for at least admitting to the American people he thinks God "speaks through" him, leading him in political directions.

As much as I think Bush's remark is a shame to our supposedly secular nation, at least he told the truth. This rare example of honesty ensured my vote will fall on the other side of the fence (not that I was hesitant). But at least he gave me the information.

God has no place in politics. However, if God is driving the same-sex marriage debate-or any others, for that matter-I want to know about it.

Politicians owe it to the public, and the public owes it to politicians to demand the truth.

Tags: