A week ago, the state of Washington legalized gay marriage. Three days after that, the New Jersey legislature passed a similar proposal. The tides of equality are finally shifting in America. At the same time, there are those that resist changing the laws of marriage. James P. McGlone, in his recent op-ed in the Crimson, “The Rhetoric of Equality,” stands out as one. But there are many that oppose progress in marriage equality.

Most arguments against gay marriage simply don’t address the central issue of this debate: whether or not there is a legal reason that gay marriage ought not be recognized by the state. Instead, they seem to suggest that a myriad of religiously tinged requirements be fulfilled before a state gives its official blessing to a couple.

When it comes down to brass tacks, many social conservatives argue, the institution of marriage exists for the sake of the biological pairing of a man and a woman. Their job, as sponsored by the state, is to reproduce. If these are the new guidelines of what the U.S. should consider legal marriage, what about those who choose not to have children? What of those who are knowingly sterile before marriage, or those who choose to adopt? Are gay couples any different than these examples? Arguments against same-sex marriage that anchor their rhetorical weight in the importance of reproduction fail to address the point that it is not the responsibility of government to dictate the sexual lives of its legal citizens, especially if it promotes the views of any religious tradition.

Religion aside, it is the responsibility of our government to provide equal protection for the life and liberty of its citizens. If “traditional” marriage is the only barrier between gay couples and constitutional equality under the law, then it is “traditional” marriage, not gay marriage, that is incompatible with the Constitution and what it stands for.

In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court asserted that Colorado had a legal obligation to apply anti-discrimination laws to the state’s gay community. The repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” signaled the end of military discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the Office of Personnel Management is now interpreting the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 to mean that it is unlawful for the government to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Most importantly, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all Americans “equal protection of the laws.”

An obvious question follows: if it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, why are we discriminating based on sexual orientation? Why is marriage discrimination considered a legally tenable position?

At the end of his article, McGlone challenged proponents of marriage equality to present a viable alternative to traditional marriage. We say: the alternatives are all around you, in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and now, Washington. Marriage is separated from other relationships by a simple legal distinction and the protections and rights that come with it. The union is consummated by the love shared between two people that want to spend their lives together. And in states where gay marriage is now legal, the institution of the family has not been degraded, public institutions have not changed their curricula or budgets, and life continues on as normal. In short, the only difference in these states is that gay people can now get married.

Now, how about the questions that traditional marriage proponents never seem to answer: Why, in 2009, did states with legalized gay marriage have a lower average divorce rate than states that hadn’t legalized it? Why are kids waiting in foster homes when the adopted children of gay couples have shown the same levels of success as those of straight couples?

It is the responsibility of our government to provide a contract through which two people can enjoy the privileges allowed to them by the law: the right to share health insurance, the right to visit each other in the hospital, the right to adopt, the right to be recognized as a legal entity. Restricting these rights based on beliefs that have no relevance in the legal context of marriage is antithetical to America’s founding principles, and it rejects the dignity of a large population of our fellow Americans.

As long as we continue to assert that the religious foundations of traditional marriage have the ability to infringe upon the rights of all Americans, we cannot truly say that we are a nation equal under the law.

Matt Shuham ’15, Legislative Director of the Harvard College Democrats, lives in Greenough. Simon Thompson ’14 is a Government concentrator in Pforzheimer House. Hannah Phillips ’15 is an English concentrator in Apley Court.