To the N.C. State community, I wanted to make a serious correction to the article that was written and published, “Weighing Both Sides of Gay Marriage,” on Wednesday as well as explain the article’s illogical and blunt format.

The article that I submitted was a partial rough draft that I had not finished writing. After I submitted my rough draft on Sunday, the following Monday, I realized not only had a made an irrelevant point, but that I had not submitted the “other side” to my story.

I wanted to personally apologize for any confusion and misunderstanding this article caused to the community. I quickly realized that my passage about “marriage should strictly be a religious institution” did not accurately express what the gay and lesbian community is fighting for; they are fighting for the civil rights that follow with being recognized as “married” by the state government. What I should have said is that I feel government should continue to discuss the possibility of this being a state issue, allowing states to decide for themselves, not a religious issue.

To explain my incorporation of the moral stance, I was attempting to illuminate the perspective against gay marriage. I wanted to point out that if people who argue from a moral standpoint, like a Christian arguing that it is morally wrong to be homosexual, wanted to truly reach the ears of the community they are targeting, they may have to reconsider their methods. That is where I would have incorporated that they may be more successful in targeting their hearts and minds. Jesus was entirely peaceful in his approach to the method of persuading another, by reaching their hearts and minds, not leading a rebellion for Caesar to change the laws of that time. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.”

I also wanted to state the other side to the argument, which should have been we must also examine their side as well. The gay community identifies that they are a minority community. Supporters of the group raise the question, “why should we not accept that they should be treated in the same manner as the heterosexual community?” They have dealt with hate crime and discrimination. They are fighting for civil rights because of their disadvantage of refusing to be formally recognized. The pressing question many politicians may not want to face is, “should we deny their rights because of their sexual orientation, possibly overriding their liberties such as refusing to allow a partner to visit the other in the hospital because they are not immediate family or spouse?” This is a prominent example of the constant struggle for balance of just how far liberty stretches. Each side has a compelling argument and students have the freedom to choose which one best supports their view.

There is a Facebook group that has been started because of this article, “Letter to the Editor: Value Diversity.” I spoke with Matt Woodward, the founder of the group, to personally apologize for not representing both sides of the draft and not being clear in my arguments. He was very courteous and we have discussed the article in detail. I am happy to say I felt the issue was resolved.

This article was actually not supposed to express my opinion about homosexual marriage and rights at all. This article was originally supposed to be just what the title says, “Weighing Both Sides.” I intended to allow the reader to decide their position, not make their decision for them.