When Karl Rove visited campus last week, he tried to outline a set of reasons why gay and lesbian couples should not be guaranteed the full and equal rights of marriage that straight couples are guaranteed. His argument was flawed and unconvincing.

He said that the issue of marital rights was one that should be decided by a legislative body, not by a court. But the function of the judicial branch of the United States government is to adjudicate inconsistencies between the legislation of Congress and the States and the Constitution. Therefore, the judicial branch is the constitutionally appropriate branch to settle this dispute.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Heterosexual couples are given legal and financial rights and immunities that are denied to homosexual couples. Whether or not Mr. Rove agrees with the decision of the courts, they are the institution vested with the power to judge whether denying rights to homosexual couples is constitutional or not. The legislative branch does not have the constitutional power to legislate on issues of rights. Had we legislated on the issue of segregation in 1954, instead of allowing a court to decide it, we would have endured many more years of separate water fountains and racially segregated schools.

Mr. Rove conceded that perhaps separate legislation should be passed guaranteeing rights to homosexual couples. This is entirely the wrong way to approach the issue. Creating separate laws to apply to a minority would be a return to the doctrine of “separate but equal” established in 1896. Americans tried to create a separate but equal society for sixty years. It failed because, as the Supreme Court found in the 1954 case of Brown vs. Board of Education, any separate system is inherently unequal. In the 1954 case, the specific issue at hand was education. The court acknowledged that even if separate educational facilities did provide equal amenities, they would be unconstitutional because the nature of being separate would make them inherently unequal. The court considered the implications for American society if educational institutions were to remain separated by race. We must consider the implications of separate laws for couples based on their sexual orientation. This implies that there are innate legal differences between families with gay or lesbian parents and families with straight parents. Despite what religious authorities or dated sensibilities might assert, there is no reason for anything but total legal equality among homosexual and heterosexual couples. Legal equality was the first step toward social equality for African Americans in this country. So the first step towards social equality for homosexual couples must be full legal equality.

Mr. Rove argued that since marriage is a 5,000 year old institution we should not share the rights and privileges it affords with homosexual couples. I reject this assertion and everything it implies. The twentieth century was characterized by the expansion of rights in this country. All of the great expansions of civil rights in the last one hundred years—the extension of suffrage to women and the enforcement of civil rights legislation for racial minorities—have been characterized by the inclusion of more individuals in the institutions of our society. As a society we have decided that married couples make special contributions, so we award them special privileges and rights. The fact of the matter is gay and lesbian couples are a part of society as well. They contribute to it in the same ways that straight couples do. Therefore, we should award them the same privileges that we award straight couples. This requires an extension of the institution of marriage, the same way that suffrage was extended to women in 1920 and that full civil rights were extended to African Americans in the 1960’s. When Americans look back on the history of civil rights, we never regret the expansion of rights; we only regret that it took too long to expand them. Now, in the 21st century, it is time to extend rights to sexual minorities.

So Mr. Rove, I suppose that you and I have a disagreement. As my generation takes up the mantle of leadership in our country, I look forward to seeing civil rights continue their expansionary march, in spite of those who would wish to see them stalled.