Are Opponents of Gay Marriage Bigots

Conservative columnist Katherine Kersten says today in the Star Tribune that if gay marriage is legalized those who oppose it will become bigots:

Supporters of same-sex marriage often insist that "extending marriage rights" to gay people is no big deal. It won't change life for the rest of us, they say. But if same-sex marriage becomes a civil right, the belief that one-man, one-woman marriage is best for kids becomes discriminatory, and those who hold it become bigots.

What does Kersten think about single moms and dads raising children? I bet she doesn't think too much of it. I bet she thinks that kids are better off having both a mom and a dad at home. Does that make her a bigot? I don't think so. She has an opinion about what is best for children; she is entitled to her opinion. Same goes for same-sex couples raising children. She believes children are better off in homes with a man and a woman, not two mommies or daddies. That is her opinion. It doesn't make her a bigot.

On the other hand, if she believes that gays and lesbians are in some way inherently intellectually or morally inferior and that it is O.K. to discriminate against them on that basis, then she is a bigot. But I don't hear her saying that here.

It is important to point out, however, that she is intentionally confusing the issue that is at stake here. The issue is not what is the best family situation for raising children. Single parents, common law opposite-sex partners, same-sex couples, husbands and wives, grandparents are all legally able to raise children in their homes. We can debate what is the best family situation for children. I would argue that anywhere there is love and a strong network of support there is a good family situation for children.

But again, that is not the issue. Those who are trying to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman are trying to write discrimination into the state's founding document. This is a fundamental departure from the historic practice of rarely amending constitutions at all and then only doing it to clearly defend and broaden minority rights. That is what is at stake here.