It seems to me that two conceptions of our country were altered following Tuesday's election: an African-American cannot be elected President and California is a state ruled by law and not by mob opinion.
But "the times, they are a-changin'," and we might as well change with them. So if we demolished racial barriers with the election of Sen. Barack Obama while we simultaneously negated every bit of progress made in our country to protect minority rights — from the Bill of Rights onward — from being trampled upon by majorities, then the people of this country simply must adapt to such a change and move on. This is why I am presently submitting a modest proposal of my own in response to California's elimination of the right of two people who love each other to get married.
Consider: While it is difficult to determine precisely, studies have estimated the percentage of homosexuals in the United States population to be anywhere from three percent to 10 percent.
Using a reasonable and conservative estimate of five percent, it transpires that the population of homosexuals living in the United States is approximately 15,051,997. Comparatively, according to the most recent census, the population of the entire state of Utah is estimated at 2,645,330.
I am thereby calling for an en-masse migration of homosexuals from every swath of land and every corner of this country to the state of Utah.
Once they get there, the homosexuals could effect a ballot initiative calling for an amendment to the state constitution declaring that, "Only marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is valid or recognized in Utah."
I have thought this plan through with the utmost assiduousness and caution and am convinced it is foolproof. The logistics and principles behind it are irrefutable: Homosexuals would easily carry the vote by a margin of around five to one; and if, following the precedent set by the Golden State, inherent human rights are subject to abolishment by majority opinion, there should be nothing obstructing the amendment's passage.
Of course, one may very well argue that such an amendment would do nothing but incite anger and defensiveness, especially among the religious.
Mormons indeed make up a high percentage of Utah's populace, to which I respond: While they are voting for the amendment to protect untraditional marriage, in the spirit of the epoch, why not tamper with a few other personal rights as well?
"Only religious freedom for non-Mormons is valid or recognized in Utah," would suffice. Or perhaps, "Only freedom of expression to not speak out against the homosexual marriage amendment is valid or recognized in the state of Utah."
Behind the façade of majority opinion, there would no infringement on our liberties in which it is not proper to engage.
--
Nick Perricone is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
