Just as I was ready to believe that there are no outspoken conservatives on the Hilltop, I was proven wrong – dead wrong.

My roommate and I were casually watching Diane Sawyers’ interview with Britney Spears last Thursday night when there was yet another piece of information shoved underneath our door. I must admit it sat there until the interview ended. Eventually, I picked it up. The Georgetown Academy – sounds prestigious, what could this be about? I opened up the journal, read what its pages contained and what they contained shocked me.

Now, don’t get me wrong – though I am a registered Democrat, I have seriously considered my party affiliation since coming to Georgetown. I supported the invasion of Iraq led by the United States (though I do wish things had gone differently). I certainly am not a Howard Dean fan. But as soon as I read Peter Reynolds’ piece [“Gay-Marriage: A Contradictory Phrase Bespeaking Unreasonableness,” The Georgetown Academy, Oct. 2003, p.10) my sense was suddenly smacked into me. I remembered why I was a Democrat.

Reynolds, while an excellent writer and probably a very intelligent person, seems to believe that gay marriage is threatening the Webster’s definition of “marriage.” In fact, he writes that, “Disturbingly, deluded self-righteous romantics obsessed with propagating rights are posing a serious threat to this institution.” Well, Mr. Reynolds, you are right – marriage is under attack, but certainly not by homosexuals. If you want to blame the downfall of marriage on a group in the United States, blame the heterosexuals.

What is our divorce rate in America again? I’m sure it is still over 50 percent and rising everyday. How many men and women cheat on their spouses? How many men and women marry one another for convenience, for money or because they are 35 years of age and the clock is ticking? How can we in a society block people, heterosexuals or homosexuals, who want to stand up and make a commitment to one another, who want to create a loving home for foster or adopted children and who want to contribute positively to their country, from doing so? And yes, I completely understand that the presence of divorce and adultery would not be absent from gay marriages either, but if in the process we create at least one more loving, healthy family in this country, then I would consider gay marriage a success.

What bothers me even more is Reynolds’ physical analysis. He says, “Now look at a male and a male. The two do not complement one another. Physically, they do not fit, except in a disordered a backwards way. Lastly, look at a female and a female. Once again, no fit, not even in a disordered way. This may seem like kindergarten ontology, but I think, nowadays, it needs to be said.” Since we seem to be going by superficial physical characteristics, is The Georgetown Academy willing to go further and say that a Caucasian and an Asian, Latino or African-American couple do not “look” right together? I thought I was in the Class of ’05 – 2005, not 1905.

Though I am enraged, I am sure that many in the LGBTQ community at Georgetown are as well – but I don’t pretend to speak for them. I am simply speaking from the point of view of a 19-year-old woman from New York who dreams of getting married to a wonderful man one day, who visualizes the china she will put on her registry at Bergdorf Goodman and who would love to have Carson and Kyan from “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” there picking out her china as well.

Jamie M. Gill is a junior in the College.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

Comments are closed.