By Chris Benevento, News Staff

On May 14, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton signed a bill legalizing gay marriage in his state. An estimated crowd of 6,000 cheered and waved rainbow flags as Minnesota became the 12th state to pass such a bill. It was a major victory for supporters of gay marriage nationwide.

But should it be?

In the year 2013, should 12 states out of 50 abolishing discriminatory, out-of-date laws, be considered a victory? Or an embarrassment?

I recently discussed this topic with a friend of mine who is against gay marriage. While I respect his opinions and views, I genuinely wanted to understand the reasoning behind opposing gay marriage.

To me, gay marriage has always seemed like such a small hurdle compared to what this country has tackled in the past; women’s suffrage, or securing equal rights for an entire race of people, for example. It’s hard to look at those accomplishments and see any place for gay marriage.

During the women’s suffrage movement at the turn of the 20th Century, the opposition was fueled by a fear that unqualified voters would distort the voting process.

During the civil rights movement, whites wanted separation from blacks. They wanted a societal advantage.

There were “perceived” threats.

Gay marriage does not pose a threat to anyone. It allows two people to seek happiness in each other. It legitimizes same-sex relationships that are just as deep and meaningful as heterosexual ones. The opposition to gay marriage isn’t fueled by any threat; rather, it is fueled by religious discrimination and assumed biological doctrines.

When I asked my friend why he was against gay marriage, he told me that it wasn’t what God intended. When I pushed a little more, he told me that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin.

This is the typical route for most Christian leaders throughout the country. Just last week, Minneapolis-based preacher John Piper tweeted saying, “No, Minnesota, ‘men committing shameless acts with men’ (Romans 1:27) is not, nor ever will be, marriage. Only destruction.”

Those in opposition to this movement love to quote that passage from Romans, and for good reason:  It directly portrays homosexuality in a negative way.

This looks like a pretty strong argument until you realized that the reach of religion in the United States is slowly but surely evaporating. Just last year a poll titled “The Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism” concluded that the percentage of people in the United States that claimed to be religious had dropped from 73 percent in 2005 to 60 percent.

The opposition’s response to this ever-decreasing population of classical religious people has been to seek out psychological and biological reasons that two people should not enter a homosexual relationship.

One of the main points that always seems to come up with regards to this issue is that two people of the same gender are unable to reproduce and are therefore a biological error. Marriage is meant to be a reflection of the reproductive cycle and to ignore that cycle defeats the purpose of marriage, they argue.

This isn’t exactly a sound argument. There are plenty of heterosexual couples that choose not to have children. In fact, according to the most recent census data, one in five women aged 40-45 do not have children. Their marriage licenses aren’t taken away. They aren’t discriminated against. They live their lives. Until childbirth is a stipulation of marriage, this argument is ridiculous.

The other point opponents frequently make is that gay and lesbian parents cannot possibly raise a normal child. Unfortunately for the opposition this argument is complete speculation. Numerous studies have shown that children raised in same-sex households actually excel in several social areas including self-image and confidence when compared to those raised in heterosexual households. It is the official position of the American Psychological Association that “the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”

I’m not religious and I don’t buy into the “scientific” arguments against gay marriage; rather, I take a much simpler approach:  People are nosey. History has proven that “unorthodox” always provokes conflict – and this is no different. Those who oppose huge steps forward like this Minnesota bill seek to make family exclusive only to those who look the part. It is people like this who restrict that centuries-old promise of the “pursuit of happiness” to a select group.

-Chris Benevento can be reached at [email protected]