Let businesses ban gays if they want

Wednesday Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer earned high praise from Democrats across the country for vetoing a bill put forth by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature.

The bill, had it passed, would have made it legal for businesses in the Grand Canyon state to refuse service to patrons based on their sexual orientation. It was allegedly inspired by episodes in other states in which florists, photographers and bakers were sued for refusing to cater to same-sex couples. The Arizona bill would have allowed much broader religious exemptions by business owners.

You may recall that I am a proponent of gay rights. I championed New York State’s coming of age in 2011 to allow for gay marriage. I believe that sexuality should be a non-issue when it comes to the government’s dealing with people.

But businesses aren’t government. And business owners should be allowed to discriminate — for any reason they choose.

Yeah. You read that right. I believe that private business owners should be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of sex, sexuality, religion, color, height, or anything else they so choose.

Many businesses already have signs informing their customers that they may refuse service to any patron for any reason. It’s pretty standard. It’s primarily designed as a catch-all for when they have to kick out an unruly customer - or prohibit a customer who had previously been unruly from entering their establishment again.

So if they can refuse service to anyone for any reason, why can’t they do it for reasons which we find distasteful? Being a prejudiced bigot isn’t against the law. It’s just poor form. Unless you use that prejudice and bigotry as an excuse to break another law.

To those of you who are appalled, let me explain: I’m not saying businesses should ban gays. I’m just saying they should be allowed to. Just like homosexuals may choose to get their flowers or cake or whatever for their weddings from people they agree with politically. Just like there are certain businesses that I won’t spend money at because I don’t like the owners.

Capitalism should be a two-way street. And if I have the right to shop where I want, shop owners should have the right to accept my money or not. Allowing them to be openly discriminatory makes it easier for me to decide where to spend my money.

If I were to go to a florist, grocery store, barber or bubble gum shop, only to be greeted by a sign that says “we reserve the right to discriminate against gays, Asians, and people with red hair,” I know not to spend my money there. Why would I want to assist someone so un-American in fulfilling the American dream? I wouldn’t.

If we not only allow, but force prejudiced bigots to hide their hatred, we run the risk of giving money to people who could, in turn, take that money and use it to promote their agenda of hatred, through campaign contributions to like-minded bigots or some other nefarious means. I’d rather know that the person I was giving my hard-earned money to was using it for good.

So let the bigots be open with their hatred. It will only make it easier for those of us who live in the 21st century to promote our common ideals at the exclusion of those who prefer to live in the dark ages.

Scott Leffler is an open-minded capitalist living in a world full of diminishing closed-minded people. He invites — but would never force — you to follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

States should be free to govern themselves

I don't like being told what to do. I live life by my own rules and I answer to no one but myself. I like it that way.

I also have no need to tell others what to do. If your morals differ from mine, have a blast — as long as whatever you're doing isn't hurting me, who am I to complain?

The United States were founded on these basic principals: You do your thing and I'll do mine. And as long as your thing doesn't hurt my thing, I'll leave you be.

It's a standard tenet of freedom. It's libertarianism in it's purest form. It's not anarchy. Anarchy doesn't care if your thing hurts my thing. Anarchy is survival of the fittest at the expense of the meek. Libertarianism not only allows for, but promotes certain protections against the chaos that anarchy brings.

Back up a minute. Please note that I said "The United States were founded." Not "was" founded.

See, people seem to forget that in the rest of the world, "state" and "nation" mean the same thing. We're supposed to be 50 little countries with our own identities and customs who come together in times of need and have each others' backs.

But more and more the states have become nothing more than a bureaucratic arm of the federal government. Washington D.C. is the end-all-be-all and states have to ask permission to use the restroom — figuratively speaking, of course.

An example is the recent ruling by the Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law enacted during the Clinton administration that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states.

Before I get into this, I'll remind you that I am an ardent supporter of same-sex marriages.

That said, the state of Texas — for example — is not required to allow licensed New York State drivers to drive on their roads. They do, mind you. But that could change tomorrow if they get a glimpse at how some of the idiots up here drive.

Sticking with driving, different states have different speed limits. Different states have different vehicle inspection requirements, emissions standards, etc. And if you're in Texas, you have to follow Texas law even if you're from New York.

Why then should Texas be forced to recognize your New York State marriage? Gay or straight?

If you're licensed to carry a gun in one state, that license doesn't carry over if you move to a new state. You need to get a new one. And if your new state doesn't allow that particular type of gun, you're S.O.L., if you know what I mean.

Same goes with dogs. There are some states where certain breeds are banned.

I own a pet hedgehog. Legal in New York. Illegal in Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii and Pennsylvania. And there's no reason to make a federal case of it — pun intended.

My thought is that if you don't like the laws in a certain state, don't move there. Stay with like-minded people and let other like-minded people comfort themselves.

Please don't make the slavery argument against me. Owning people is wrong on any level. It's not "immoral." It's just WRONG. It isn't a states' rights issue. And it gets back to "your thing" interfering with "my thing." And as much as I support same-sex marriage, there is no comparison.

Scott Leffler and his hedgehog live in beautiful Lockport, New York with his two daughters. Follow him on twitter @scottleffler. 

Portman announcement braver than Clinton’s

Last week’s column on gay marriage — particularly on Hillary Clinton’s relatively late-to-the-party support of gay marriage — got a lot of feedback.

Not only has there been a lot of feedback on the column itself, there’s been a lot of news on the topic in the last week. And there seems to have been a lot of news on the topic every week for the last … forever.

As I write this column, gay marriage is the top news story on my Google News feed. There are stories about the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, the state of Ohio, Starbucks, and a variety of pols who have recently come out in favor of gay marriage.

Over the weekend, former GOP poster boy and brain Karl Rove said he imagines that the Republican nominee for president in 2016 could be someone that supports gay marriage, simply as a sign that the pendulum is swinging in that direction.

As I mentioned last week, 58 percent of Americans have recently voiced support for same-sex marriage. That means that some self-described Republicans must be in that crowd. One such self-described Republican is Ohio Congressman Robert Portman, who recently changed his tune — very publicly — on the topic of same-sex marriage, largely due to the fact that his 21-year-old son is gay.

Some have said that Portman’s reversal is a selfish one … and a sign that the GOP remains out of touch with the real world. Unless it affects them directly, they don’t care, it’s been said.

I think that’s more of a humanity thing than a GOP thing, though. It’s also the reason that support for same-sex marriage is increasing. According to a CNN/ORC International survey, 57% of respondents say they have a family member or close friend who is gay or lesbian. That number is 12 points higher than six years ago.

I’d also like to point out that there are a number of fathers (and mothers) who find out that their sons (and daughters) are gay, but who don’t come around on the topic. Fortunately, though, those numbers are thinning.

Rob Portman isn’t just any dad, either, as indicated by the first reference of “Ohio Congressman Robert Portman.” His position dictates certain things. And his party affiliation dictates things as well. At least it did until now.

Frankly I’m just as impressed with Rob Portman’s decision to “come out” in support of gay marriage as I was unimpressed with Hillary Clinton’s.

Clinton was the one of the last Democrats to support what has essentially been a Democrat position. She was the final lemming, if you will. Portman, however, is one of the first Republicans to support what is about to become a human issue. He is a leader among his kind.

Scott Leffler is neither Democrat, Republican, nor lemming. He was for gay marriage way before it was cool. Tweet your support (or vitriol) @scottleffler. 

Do you really want Hillary Clinton defining marriage?

On Monday, former first lady, secretary of state and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton came out in support of gay marriage.

The part of me that supports gay marriage thinks this is a great thing. But the part of me that has watched with mild dismay over what the Clintons have referred to as marriage is a little taken aback.

My personal belief is that marriage is a covenant between the two parties involved and God … or the church, if you prefer. I have long believed that if a couple could find a church to pronounce them spouses, it makes no difference what the state or federal government thinks. After all, the state’s role in marriage is simply one of codifying that which is already true.

To further explain: If two men or two women could find a church to say that they are legally married, the state of New York (or any other state) should not have any sort of veto power over a legally binding contract. The state’s sole role should be to mark it in the books as being “so.”

As of late, the topic of gay marriage has gained support among not only Democrats but the public at large. In fact, a recent poll said that 58 percent of Americans now support gay marriage. To be honest, I find that number to be surprising. I am shocked to believe that that many heterosexuals would be willing to share their “right” to marriage with homosexuals. But it shows that as a society we are making progress on the compassion front.

My biggest issue here is that by Hillary Clinton attaching her name to this cause, she actually dilutes the notion in a sort of “guilt by association” manner. Because the Clintons marriage has long been believed to be more of a political partnership than a personal partnership, I fear that some who oppose gay marriage will actually hold Bill and Hillary up as an example of why not to support gay marriage.

Imagine if you will Bernie Madoff discussing the importance of investing. Once his name is involved, the whole notion becomes tainted. He is probably responsible, after all, for people burying their money in their backyard or hiding it in a box under their bed. In fact, his suggesting that people should invest in the stock market should only serve as an example of why you’re best off doing just that — hiding your money in your freezer, ala William Jefferson.

Ronald McDonald shouldn’t be a spokesperson for dieting. Chelsea Handler shouldn’t be a spokesperson for sobriety. Sylvester Stallone shouldn’t be a spokesperson for yoga. And Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be a spokesperson for marriage — gay, straight or any other kind.

Scott Leffler would hide his money in his freezer … if he had any to hide. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

There are things that actually matter

To hear some people tell it, this great republic of ours is on the brink of disintegration. We’re just days away from the annihilation of the Constitution and being run by the United Nations or George Soros. Or worse — both!

While I disagree that George Soros or the U.N. are the enemy, to a large extent, I agree with the doom-and-gloom crowd. I think we’re at a crossroads and it’s time to choose freedom. It’s time to remind the government that they serve our needs. Not the other way around.

Now, I’m not calling for armed insurrection, but it’s worth noting that we overthrew our English overlords for much less than our own government is doing to us right now. Yet there are many who are perfectly content to let government run their lives because it’s easier than being responsible for themselves. They’ve got a bowl full of Dinty Moore and Major League Baseball on their television. Who needs freedom?

The ancient Roman strategy of bread and circus served the Empire of Rome well. And it serves Congress well, too. As long as we’ve got food to eat and something to keep us entertained, we’ll ignore the fact that Congress is draining us of all that’s truly important — our worth and our liberty.

While we spend all our time bickering over who should have the right to marry (a religious institution that I don’t think government should have a say in in the first place), Congress tried to gut the First Amendment in the form of SOPA and later, CISPA.

While those of us with limited means fight to get what we can from the 1 percent, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), allowing for indefinite military detention without charge or trial.

The NDAA is ugly. It’s like the Patriot Act had a little brother and that little brother is really mean. It’s an affront to the Fourth Amendment among other things. It stops just short of declaring the United States a war zone and imposing permanent martial law. And we should work to stop it. Just like we should work to stop a lot of the things that the state and federal governments are doing to us. But we’re bogged down talking about birth control.

Combine the two ugly acronyms — NDAA and CISPA — and you get A SIC PANDA. You also get a nation where you can be arrested and detained for anything or nothing and have no due process, nor an ability to even complain about it publicly.

You may say I’m being dramatic and exaggerating the issue and that we’ll never let it get that far. I’d like to think that was true. But I didn’t think we’d ever let it get this far.

It got this far because we were distracted — by American Idol, gay marriage, abortion and the NBA playoffs. We need to start paying attention to the things that matter.

Rich gay rodeo clowns and the people who love them

I find it mildly interesting that President Barack Obama took the occasion last week to come out in defense of gay marriage — kind of.

But I found the reaction to it incredibly interesting. It is proof that sometimes you just can’t please anyone.

First out of the box was the looney left, complaining that he didn’t come out far enough. They wanted him to declare that he was in favor of gay marriage and offer to draft a Constitutional Amendment which he would then force Congress and the states to approve — at gunpoint if necessary. 

They were disappointed in Obama’s wishy-washy-ness. In essence, what the president really said was that while he doesn’t have a problem with gay marriage, it’s really up to the states to decide. 

Many viewed this as a sellout, in the same way that they viewed Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy to be a sellout, as well. But they forget that DADT eventually resulted in the free and clear allowance of gays serving in the military. It was a watershed moment for the gay movement and at the time the left didn’t see it, although the right did.

Once the left was out of hot air, the rabid right jumped in saying that President Obama was out to ruin marriages and turn the United States into a land owned and operated exclusively by homosexuals.

My favorite bit was one where many on the right seemed to state that Obama was jumping out in favor of gay marriage in order to curry the gay vote — as though there were a chance they were going to support Romney — or to raise money from gay marriage advocates. 

Then there were the president’s advisors and prominent elected Democrats who were upset that the president would take such a risk in an election year. They publicly stated that they wished the president would have waited to make such an announcement until after the election, seemingly believing that he has the election in the bag.

Personally, I find the president’s statement to be a bit underwhelming. To find out that there’s a Democrat who supports gay marriage is akin to finding out that high school students can be cruel.

Which leads me to the big reveal on Mitt Romney: When he was in high school he mocked and harassed some kids that he believed to have been gay.

While bullying and harassment are NOT okay, everyone knows that they are prominent in high schools across America. And everyone should know that they used to be even more prominent. So to find out that the boy with the silver spoon used to harass people he viewed as different just isn’t that shocking.

Personally, I don’t care that Mitt Romney used to be a jerk. Short of murder or arson, I don’t really care what any of the candidates did in their teen years. I know that I had certain shortcomings when I was a teen. I grew out of them. I’m sure that to an extent, they did, too.

An argument can be made that “it goes to show character,” but I think that’s hogwash. Mitt Romney proudly displays his character on his shirt sleeve. That’s what we’re voting on: who he is now. Not who he was decades ago.

Democrats support gay marriage. Rich kids can be cruel. And the sun rose today. None of those things are news. And frankly, they only serve as a distraction from the real issues.

Memories are better when you share them

With New York's first gay marriage taking place just down the river from our house, how could the kids and I not go? Sure, it was at midnight and yeah, there were a lot of people and a throng of press-types. But this was history in the making. And even more importantly, my girls wanted to go see it happen.

So Saturday evening we piled into the car and headed to Luna Island to watch the state's first gay wedding, taking place at midnight between Kitty Lambert and Cheryle Rudd.

The ceremony itself was somewhat short ... and Niagara Falls Mayor Paul Dyster had to slow down, improvise, wait for applause, and just plain pause just to make sure he didn't get "I now pronounce you legally married" out of his voicebox until after midnight.

And when he did, the crowd roared loudly.

Following the ceremony, the brides talked to the press and mingled with the crowd, many of them strangers to the women, self included. They were gracious and seemed thrilled with the response they received.

There was also a ceremony of hope that the nation's 44 states that don't recognize same-sex marriages would change their tune. My oldest was thrilled that she was one of 22 people who got to take part in that ceremony. It's something she'll never forget.

And really, that's what it's all about for me and my girls. We try to experience life in a way worth remembering. We try to live a life worth remembering.

Earlier Saturday, we had gone to Tonawanda Island and toured the Nina and Pinta. We added them to the other famous boats we'd toured before, including the Amistad and the Mayflower. We joked that all we needed was the Titanic and we'd have all the boats on our checklist.

There is actually a checklist. A bucket list, if you will. It includes the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade and the Kentucky Derby. This weekend, I also added the 2012 Olympics in London to my checklist. I've never been abroad and what better reason to visit Europe than for the Olympics.

In the past few years, we've knocked some pretty major ones off our checklist, including the inauguration of President Barack Obama, which I took my oldest daughter to. I had decided before the election itself that I wanted to go to the inauguration, whether Obama had won or whether it was John McCain. I was particularly happy that Obama won because it meant my daughter wanted to come with me, making the memorable moment that much better. “We were there” is a much more meaningful statement than “I was there.”

We also attended Groundhog Day in Punxsutawney, which I surprised the whole family with. My girls will remember that it was cold. But they'll certainly remember it. And I'll remember Punxsutawney, as well as Phil. But moreso, I'll remember being there with my family.

Life is more than about getting through it. It's about making memories with those you love. For me, that means doing things that are different … and doing them with my beautiful daughters.

I hope everyone has someone to make memories with.

Kitty and Cheryle do. And my daughters and I think that's awesome.

Gay capitalism, part II

As you've seen on these pages before, I have been all-too-happy to champion the acknowledgement of gay marriage in New York State.

This weekend, we ran two stories talking about gay marriage in Niagara County. One dealing with its effect in Niagara Falls and one dealing with its effect outside of the Cataract City.

It appears from those stories that the new nuptials will provide somewhat of an economic boon on the west end of Niagara County, while having little-to-no effect in the rest of the county.

I was happy to see city leaders in Niagara Falls push to make the most out of the new possibilities, something I advocated for in a previous column. There is money to be had here.

The thought of a mass gay marriage in the Falls gives me warm fuzzies. It's always nice to see your point of view validated.

The second story that ran, however, noted that not only is gay marriage not a big deal in the rest of the county, there are at least two businesses that say they will chose to not cater to gay couples in the businesses.

While I find this disappointing, after much reflection, I actually don't have a problem with it.

I'd like to make a disclaimer here that both of the business owners are people I know … and consider friends. But I think I'd feel the same no matter who they were.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think they're decisions are wrong. But they're their decisions to make, even though they're breaking the law.

I've said 1,000 times that I'm more interested in what's right than what's legal. And I have my own code of ethics. Frankly, there are a lot of bad laws out there. And although I don't think the acknowledgement of gay marriage is one of them, I can appreciate those who stand by their convictions in their belief that it is.

There are higher powers to answer to than the state of New York. And if some people feel those higher powers would want them to discriminate against gay couples then so be it.

Personally, I have more respect for someone who disagrees with me out of principle than someone who agrees with me and doesn't know why.

There will be some who will want to challenge non-compliant business owners in court. I, personally, think that's silly. Why would anyone want to give money to a place they're not wanted.

I have – from time to time – been known to make a few enemies. There are certain business owners, for example, that have made it all to clear to me that they'd prefer I stop talking altogether.

Well, considering money talks, I don't say a word to those businesses. I prefer to spend my money at places that more readily accept it. And that's exactly what gay couples will do.

The free market will take care of itself, allowing like-minded people to do business together. Nobody has to do business with someone they find distasteful and everyone thrives.

As I've said before, I don't think the state should be in the business of deciding who can get married. But I think it's perfectly acceptable for business owners to decide whose money they want to take.

Funny thing about that money, though. It's kind of the great equalizer. Most people will take anyone's.  

What if we call it gay capitalism?

As I listened to the debate and subsequent vote over the marriage equality act in the New York state Senate on Thursday, I couldn't help but beam with pride as the “yes” votes were cast.

I thought lifting the ban on gay marriage was the right thing for the state to do and I was overwhelmed with emotion that 33 of the state's 62 senators agreed with me.

Yes, I realize that there are many of you out there who disagree and are dismayed at our state Senate. I also realize that this column isn’t going to change your mind. And, to be honest, I’m not one to gloat. But I would like to revel a bit in all the new possibilities.

For one, think of the new revenue streams that same sex weddings can bring into the state. I didn't like this benefit as a reason to pass the bill, but I think it's a great side effect of its passage.

I know we tend to forget what a draw it is, but Niagara Falls – despite its drawbacks – is still a world-class destination for travelers both foreign and domestic. And while I'm pretty sure the ship sailed on it being the “Honeymoon Capital of the World” quite some time ago, there's nothing to say we can't be the gay honeymoon capital of the world.

Same sex couples can get hitched in the Falls, book receptions, motels and spend massive amounts of cash here … on this side of the border. I'm talking about private dollars being spent on private enterprises.

Sad as it may seem, I'm thinking a reality show has got to already be rolling around in someone's head. Maybe they follow a specific couple. Or maybe they follow around a member of the clergy who specializes in gay marriage. I haven't worked the details out in my head yet, but Hollywood's got to be thinking of it.

A reality show based in Niagara Falls would have to mean more tourists, and as such, more revenue for hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the like.

And, like it or not, more weddings will eventually mean more divorces. While I certainly can't get excited about this, I can only imagine that divorce lawyers are licking their chops at the new opportunities.

And not just lawyers, but marriage counselors, psychologists, etc. Yes, the downside of marriage is profitable for some.

Again, these side effect benefits aren't reason enough to support gay marriage, in my opinion, but they might help make the concept more bearable for those of you who opposed the idea.

As for me, I'm just happy that gay couples can join in on the party that the rest of us were invited to … just by having been born straight.

Strangely, Thursday night I sat at my desk, listening to the arguments being made and the votes being cast, overwhelmingly happy for thousands of people I'll never meet.

I hope that those of you who disagree with the concept can set aside that difference and be happy for them, too. And if not, try to figure out a way to make a buck on it.

After all, the only thing more American than equality is capitalism.

Government has no role in marriage

Some people have no respect for the sanctity of marriage. They view marriage as something to horde and keep for themselves. To them, it’s a political football to be kicked around Albany — or  Washington, D.C.

There is no logical reason that I can understand why Republicans and Democrats should have the privilege of defining marriage, any more than they should be allowed to define the words “hope,” “love” or “commitment.”

If I believed for a second that politicians understood hope, love or commitment, I may be willing to consider their ability to define marriage. But I have little faith — another word I don’t want politicians defining — that elected officials understand any of these concepts.

There are several dictionary definitions of the word “marriage.” The one I tend to give the most credence to is: “The combination of two things into a new single entity.”

In the current debate over the word marriage, the question is whether it need be a union between a man and woman, or simply a union between two people. See, the state of New York decided a long time ago that marriage is specifically a union between a man and woman. And currently, there are 31 people in the state Senate who seem to want to keep it that way.

The latest census figures say that there are more than 19 million people living in New York. Scientific data says that one in 10 people is gay. Simple math, therefore, says that there are 1.9 million homosexuals in New York who can’t marry their person of choice because of 31 people who call themselves “public servants.”

I’ve always viewed marriage as a commitment between two people — and God. Marriage is a religious institution. Not a state institution. The only reason for the state’s involvement is to oversee the financial ramifications of the marriage, and as is far-too-often the case, the eventual divorce.

The state should be nothing more than a witness to a union created by the church. But as it is right now, there are 31 people objecting to what could potentially be 10 percent of marriages. Not just objecting, mind you, but vetoing them.

In my opinion, if a happy couple can find a church to marry them, the state should not stand in the way.
Many churches won’t want to marry same-sex couples. And I don’t have a problem with their hesitation or refusal to do so. They should not be forced to. They shouldn’t be barred from it, though, either.

Some would suggest that “marriage” be reserved for couples of a man and a woman, while allowing same-sex couples to have “civil unions.” These people are engaging in semantics, essentially creating the “straights-only” drinking fountains of the 21st century.

You may wholeheartedly disagree with me. That is certainly your right. I would suggest, however, that if you don’t want gay marriage, don’t marry someone of your own sex. And leave it at that.

You don’t get to tell other people what they can eat, drink or say in their own homes. We’ve finally reached the point where most of us have concluded that you can’t tell people what they can do in their own bedrooms, either. The next logical step is that we shouldn’t tell people who they can marry in their own churches.

Hope, love, commitment and faith are not things to be hoarded.

When the majority is wrong ...

It would seem to me that if something’s right, it’s always right. Doesn’t matter what day it is or what year it is.

Slavery was wrong. It was always wrong. It was just as wrong in 1801 as it was in 1865 … as it is today. Slavery didn’t become wrong. We just eventually figured it out.

Just a few short decades ago, there remained laws in many states that prohibited inter-racial marriage. Those laws were wrong. Wrong now. Wrong then. We eventually figured it out.

And in 2009, gay marriage is illegal throughout the majority of our nation, including New York state, allegedly one of the most liberal states in the union.

And, frankly, that’s wrong. And our state senate had an opportunity last week to show the world they had figured that out. But instead they chickened out, voting 38-24 in opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage.

Every member of the Republican party voted against it. And every member of the Western New York contingent voted against it, save for Antoine Thompson.

I can’t recall ever being proud of Antoine Thompson before. I was last week.

Opponents will say that marriage is between a man and a woman … as God intended. I say if this is a religious issue, the state should have nothing to do with it. Let the churches decide if they wish to perform same-sex nuptials. Neither force them to, nor prohibit them from. Kind of … oh, what do they call that? Separation of church and state.

Opponents also say that same-sex marriage destroys the “sanctity” of marriage. With a greater than 50 percent divorce rate among heterosexuals, I think the “sanctity” of marriage can be questioned without the help of the gay community.

Opponents will say that if we allow homosexuals to marry, the next step will be to allow for polygamy … or for people to marry their pets. Probably exactly the same logic employed when inter-racial marriage was a hot topic. ‘Cause obviously if a black man wants to marry a white woman, he’d be equally inclined to marry a Shetland pony.

Opponents say that the majority of people don’t care about gay marriage. Never mind the fact that the reason we’re a republic instead of a democracy is to allow cooler, smarter heads to prevail and not allow the majority to trample the rights of the minority.

Most data suggests that approximately 10 percent of the population is gay. So the other 90 percent can pretend they don’t exist? I’ve also read that 10 percent of the world’s population lives with some sort of disability. Can we ignore them, too? Only 6 percent of the U.S. population — including yours truly — has red hair. Should I be shunned or ignored?

If you’re on a deserted island with nine other people and they decide that you would make a good dinner, that doesn’t make it right.

To sum it up, each and every one of us is in the minority on occasion. That doesn’t make us wrong. And it doesn’t mean our voice should be silenced.

If our good state senators oppose gay marriage for themselves, so be it. But to prevent 10 percent of the state’s population from being able to marry the one they love due to their own homophobia, lack of understanding, lack of compassion or simply kowtowing to the “majority” is just wrong.

If they were capable of being ashamed, I’d say shame on them. But we all know they’re not.