Miss California, you disappoint me.” That is how Dana Zelman began her column commenting on gay marriage. I shall start with, Ms. Zelman, your arguments disappoint me. Let me be clear – I am not here to discuss views on the rightness or wrongness of gay marriage, only the lack of correct facts and logic in Zelman’s arguments.

Zelman begins with noting that “[L]egislatures in of Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont have opened the door for gays to marry…” A quick read of the news will show it’s the Supreme Court of Iowa, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts and Supreme Court Connecticut that allow gay marriage, only Vermont used the legislature.

There is huge legal significance there. Isn’t one of the first rules of journalism to “get your facts right?” Especially such highly publicized facts?

Zelman next notes homosexuality has been and still is rejected “primarily on the basis of religion.”

What other basis is there for approval or rejection? Today, we often use the word “ideology” but at its root, it is still a set of beliefs held about the world that the holder tends to believe to be true, even if that “truth” is relative, based on some form of evidence.

Marriage is primarily a religious concept, recognized legally because nearly all religions recognize some form of it. Some countries even have separate laws on marriage for different religions, reflecting the individual religion’s beliefs.

The idea that homosexuality is good merely because it is “natural” contains the “religious” belief that nature is necessarily good. What if someone views nature as necessarily bad? Does that mean homosexuality is necessarily bad? I hope we have better arguments than that.

I find the “it is natural” argument to be worthless for all sides because its value is entirely dependent on our religious views of nature’s worth. Anyone remember the evils of Social Darwinism?

The Christian stance is grossly oversimplified, citing merely one verse. Zelman does not address the numerous others, the theological arguments for or against, or the nuances and legal views therein. Since when it is appropriate to cite one friend as the example that the vast majority of people on a position within Christianity are ignorant? Yes, there are many well-articulated views within Christianity.

“It is therefore impossible for an all-loving being to not love something [natural]…” No, those don’t necessarily follow logic. Love is not the same as approval. We’ve all done things our parents wouldn’t approve of, do they love us any less? Way to put the concept of an all-powerful God in a tiny human box with no substantiated logical connection.

Let us at least be honest and admit the real issue is a disagreement between differing “religious” views, including atheistic ones. How desperate for “hot issue” columns is The Red & Black that they would print collections of arguments replete with factual and logical flaws, unrepresentative examples and over simplification? These kind of weak and flawed arguments help no one.

- David Smythe is a second year law student from Plano, Texas.