The following is a letter I wrote that appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on August 17, 2010. The title it was given (not my choice) is, "Show me the evidence against gay marriage".

YURIHONJO, Japan — In his Aug. 16 column, Herald columnist Lloyd Omdahl makes the same mistake Proposition 8 supporters made in the trial ("Judge missed the compelling state purpose," Page A4).

Omdahl says that bans on gay marriage ought to be constitutional because they promote a compelling state interest — "safety of the public" — but he presents no facts to back that up.

Omdahl writes, "[Judge Walker] went far afield with a number of unfounded suppositions and conclusions without recognizing any compelling state purpose for protecting the benefits of traditional marriage."

But to be constitutional, Prop 8 needed to have a basis in something other than a private moral or religious belief.

At the trial, Prop 8 supporters argued two key points: that Prop 8 promotes stable relationships because men and women naturally produce children, and that Prop 8 promotes optimal households for raising children properly.

But expert witness testimony showed that these claims are mere guesswork, unsupported by evidence.

Thus, the judge struck down Prop 8.

Here, Omdahl briefly mentions "public safety" but never says what that means. If gay and lesbian couples get married, are they going to do something dangerous? Omdahl never explains how gay marriage is a public safety issue — probably because it isn't.

In fact, evidence in the Prop 8 trial showed that gay and lesbian parents are as good at raising children as heterosexual parents. Also in the Prop 8 trial, even the star witness for Prop 8 admitted, "Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice [and] a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes." This is the exact opposite of Omdahl's claim that legalizing gay marriage threatens public safety.

States can't discriminate based on sexual orientation without a "compelling state purpose." Religion doesn't qualify, and neither do vague and unfounded assertions of "safety of the public."

If Omdahl wants to oppose gay marriage, he might start by looking for a reason grounded in fact, not thin air.

Douglas Perkins