Argument:Marriage Equality

There is a large minority in the United States of America that is missing a considerable number of rights; they can’t marry, they can’t file joint tax returns, they are looked down upon by insurance agencies, and, in some states, they even lack the right to adopt children. Since the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, the federal government has refused to acknowledge that there are same sex couples that love one another and are married to one another in all eyes but that of the state. This is utterly unacceptable, and thus, same sex marriage should be legalized in the United States.

I was raised in a household that was and is devoutly Christian. All of my short life it has been ingrained into my mind that I should grow up and get married. It is in my family, at my school, on the television, the internet, and the city billboards; it is everywhere. It is socially proper, socially desirable, to fall and love and get married and to have children. This society has told me for years that I cannot be successful or happy unless I get married. But society is infamous for sending mixed signals. The same society that has been literally calling to me to take a trip to the altar has also told me that people like me do not get married. That my love is somehow inferior to that shared by a man and a woman. Society has told me that lesbians and gays are not to be married.

A woman makes her way up the aisle between pews in a small country church. The light dances through stained glass windows, and her eyes are wet with happiness. As she makes her way to the altar, she brushes a lock of dark hair from her face, and smiles at her partner. Her soon-to-be-wife, smiles back and smoothes her dress. In a park in the early spring, two men stand beside each other in matching suits. Their hands are linked as the priest reads vows. Their family and friends sit in chairs upon the new spring’s grass, tears in all eyes, as the two men declare their love for one another and exchange rings. In a large church, in a large city, a man watches as his beloved’s father walks with her up the aisle. He can’t help but smile at the thought of being with her, at the thought of spending his life next to her. At the thought of being legally bound to her. His last thought is the one that separates him and the two other couples. He can be legally bound to his beloved, while the others must be content with only a proclamation of their love, perhaps blessed by their religious organization or their families, but certainly not blessed by the state.

“Marriage,” says The American Heritage Dictionary, “[is] the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.” Here, we see that the most common definition of marriage is flawed. Marriage is not always the legal union of a man and a woman; in Massachusetts, for instance, same-sex marriage is legal, thus making The American Heritage Dictionary’s definition fallacious. But the biggest problem with The American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of marriage is that for the most part, it is true. In most instances marriage is a legal union between a man and woman as husband and wife.

In modern American culture marriage is expected of almost everyone. So much so, in fact, that those choosing the single lifestyle are a considerable minority and children born out of wedlock are often seen as deprived. And yet, America denies the privilege of civil marriage to a rather large minority—according to sexologist Alfred Kinsey, between 4 and 10% of the population.

Marriage is an institution, a custom if you will, given to us by the Judeo-Christian founders of the nation, the same founders who endorsed the separation of church and state. But while some Judeo-Christian religious groups/churches recognize gay and lesbian clergy members, and even support the right of same-sex couples to marry on a civil or religious level, the state still denies this minority the civil right.

Why is the conjugal contract of two men or two women so socially
unacceptable? The main reason is there is a lack of awareness of this particular minority. The public is so ignorant and fearful of homosexuality that homosexuals are said to have “an agenda” and “an alternative lifestyle.” To be confronted by those words is utterly confusing. Like other humans in the known universe homosexuals have a way of life that is more or less identical to their heterosexual counterparts in their respective cultures, except perhaps that the partner they bid goodnight is of the same gender. It is staggering to be said to have “an agenda”—a day planner perhaps, but “an agenda”? Al Qaeda has an agenda; rebel factions have agendas. The only agenda one could ever rightly accuse the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community of having is equality.

Others are attached to the utterly absurd argument that homosexuality is somehow unnatural, and thus same-sex couples should not be permitted to married. Even neglecting to mention that homosexuality is rather common in birds and mammals (even those considered “higher animals”), it was recently discovered by scientists at the University of Illinois, that homosexuality is actually genetic trait in some lower animals. And if homosexuality is a karyotype in lower animals, it indeed could be related to genetic factors, which makes it as natural as the color of one’s eyes. This often leads to the argument that we, as humans, should not indulge in such animalistic tendencies. Though, American Heritage Dictionary defines natural as “present in or produced by nature.” It is fallacious to argue that same-sex marriage is unnatural, and when confronted with evidence that it is, indeed, natural insist that animalistic tendencies are shameful. Are those animalistic tendencies not also as natural as the venerated union of a man and a woman? Besides, since when has America shunned all that is unnatural?  Can one make it throughout the day without coming in contact with polyester and without drinking artificial flavoring? Surely, polyester and soda including such flavoring are not immoral because they are unnatural. Others use the argument that homosexuality is unnatural or “wrong” because copulation does not lead to procreation, but by this logic, birth control and infertility are also wrong.

Another argument against gays going to the altar is that homosexuality is new, and not here to stay. People who use this argument have an extraordinary manner of pretending themselves blind to history. Homosexuality was prevalent in almost every ancient culture, so much so that many had some form of marriage available for those who wished it. At some points in Classical Europe, the relationship between two men was considered more sacred than that between a man and his wife. Forms of homosexual marriage survived into the late medieval period, where they were often misleadingly called “brotherhoods” where two unrelated men pledged to live together and share “one bread, one wine, and one purse.” In Native American culture, in most societies there were people called two-spirited, and would often take on the role of the opposite gender at an early age and marry a member of the same sex. Two-spirits were often highly venerated shamans. It seems homosexuality is not the new concept—homophobia is the new concept.

Why is marriage so important to this particular minority? To some, it is a deeply religious ceremony where they are united officially in the eyes of their god, and to others it is a traditional practice where a couple effectively “mates for life” in the eyes of their family and friends. And yet to others, it is not a matter so much of actually getting married—but to be allowed the opportunity to be married. Where we are guaranteed in The Constitution equal protection under the law, and in The Declaration of Independence states “All men were created equal,” does it not stand to reason that marriage and its financial and social benefits and protections ought to be available to each and every person, regardless of their sexual orientation? While a heterosexual, bi-national couple could get married and the foreign partner could dwell legally in the United States, a homosexual couple may have to deal with expensive visas or a long separation.

Marriage, one must understand, presents a couple with numerous benefits in the eyes of the law. Married couples have the ability to reduce their tax liability by filing a joint return; they are also entitled to some special governmental benefits through programs such as Social Security and can inherit from one another in the event that there is no will. Married couples are, by law, immune to subpoenas requiring them to testify against their partners in a court of law, and marriage to an American citizen gives a foreigner the right to residency in the states. Civil unions and domestic partnerships barely offer a fraction of these benefits. Nor do civil unions and domestic partnerships offer many of the benefits of marriage on a customary basis. Most employers offer their employees health insurance through the company, often also extending that coverage to the spouse at the employer’s expense. There are very, very few businesses willing to carry out such a practice for same-sex couples. They are not married by the definition of the law, so there must be a separate policy opened in the name of the employee’s partner. Furthermore, even when one partner wills belongings to the other, it is possible (especially if the deceased’s family was opposed to their relationship) for the court to declare that the will was written under “undue influence” and that the property agreement was “meretricious”—illegal because of repayment for sexual favors.

Denying marriage to homosexual men and women on a secular level is effectively encouraging homophobia. The state, by disallowing gay couples to marry is sending a very loud (and very clear) message to the people that our government as it stands does not put as much faith in the love between two men or two women as it does in a heterosexual couple, that somehow the relationship is less sacred, and cannot be held in such high esteem. It also seems that civil unions and domestic partnerships are some warped attempted of a “separate but equal” policy. They are not equal on a connotative or denotative level, so much so that civil unions, which grant the couple the most rights, only have the rights that do not require government expenditure.

People are swallowed up in this deafening roar of homophobia. They are swallowed by right-wing propaganda proclaiming that homosexuality is a “gateway drug” if you will, into the deviant. This propaganda puts many who have no first-hand experience with homosexual people under the impression that the “homosexual lifestyle” is one filled with hard drugs and promiscuousity. The reality is that such is only the truth for a very small percentage of the LGBT community, distributed in about the same manner as it is in exclusively heterosexual communities. Even if such slanderous statements were true, homosexual marriage would be an apt remedy, as marriage is sometimes adequate to deter people from indulging in such behavior. Homosexual relationships are based on much more than lust—they are entirely comparable to heterosexual relationships, save gender—they are made up of mutual care and understanding.

Same-sex marriage is a goal of many gay-rights advocacies. Why? Because marriage, as it is symbolic in modern culture, is even more symbolic in this context. Not only would obtaining the right to marry a partner of the same sex be almost iconoclastic to the tradition of marriage as it stands, tearing down many traditional ideas, but it would also validate the relationship in a same-sex couple in the eyes of the state and the wider society. Making marriage equality a reality is a step toward full inclusion into society for gays and lesbians everywhere.

Tear down the tradition of marriage? Is that something we really want to do? Today, more and more marriages are failing, and divorce rates are higher than ever, save in one state. That state being Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legalized in 2004, where divorce rates have fallen in the past three years to where they had been in the 1940s. Celebrities marry one another for a matter of days in order to make the headlines. Marriage, for many, today, is a decision based on children, publicity, or finances, not that legendary love.

The idea that heterosexual marriage as it stands today is at all traditional is preposterous. In a time not so long ago, men paid for their bride and women were considered property. Not so long ago, biblical law called for the adulterous to be stoned to death and interracial marriage met steep opposition from the government. And yet people argue that gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy, bestial marriage, incestuous marriage, and other decidedly immoral concepts. It is time to call them on their fallacies. Just because people have been doing something for hundreds of years does not make it right, and there is no proof to support a slippery slope in this instance. This just goes to confirm the horrible stigma so attached to homosexuality by modern culture.

Unlike polygamy, unlike bestial marriage, unlike incestuous marriage or the myriad of other things same-sex marriage is so disgracefully compared to, gay marriage hurts no one, save homophobes. If one does not fear or hate homosexuality, there is no negative impact. Animals and children cannot consent to marriage by law. Children lack the experience and animals lack communications skills. What do the homosexual lack that they cannot consent to marriage? And homosexuality provides no high risk for birth defects as does incestuous marriage, and it has absolutely no relationship to scandalous multi-marriage, multi-divorce affairs as polygamy has famously caused.

Another issue of worth to examine is same-sex couples with children. Adoption and other options are available for other same-sex couples to have children, and in the tragic event that a relationship fails, the child is often left to suffer. Without marriage available, there is also no divorce, which often times means no custody for one of the partners. A parent who has reared a child with love may no longer have visitation rights to that child because of a bitter partner. This is not only painful to the parent and child, but also unjust. Some oppose same-sex marriage solely under the belief that homosexual parents would solely produce homosexual children. The American Psychiatric Association disagrees. Also, by this logic, heterosexual parents would solely produce heterosexual children, which is by no means the truth. For some other unknown reason, many believe that spending time with a homosexual individual will make one homosexual. That statement is about as true as saying spending time in a library will make one intelligent. If one so desires, one can spend a lifetime in a sea of books and learn none of the titles.

Others run screaming into the night proclaiming that a child cannot be adequately raised without a role model of both genders. For this reason, in the United States, at least, there are many laws forbidding a single parent raising a child. In fact, this belief is so widely held in the United States, that when a heterosexual couple bears children, they are required to both become “domestic engineers” for a time, until it has been determined that they have fitfully exposed their children to classical and normal examples of gender roles and stereotypes.

Many Judeo-Christian sects expressly forbid homosexuality. But when we examine the books which make the proclamation that such practices are to be forbidden there are other passages the same people would meet with “that was a cultural practice”, such as many verses in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible which support or at least tolerate the practice of a man having several concubines (Solomon purportedly had 1,000 concubines) and slavery (Ex 21:1-6). Today, I hazard to guess that one would find few devout to any Judeo-Christian faith that would hold that the time in which the passages were written has much significance upon their meaning and the manner in which they are to be interpreted.

Does it not, explicitly state in the Constitution that all United States citizens have a right to the freedom of religion? We are no theocracy. And last time I checked, almost every law meets some sort of fanatical religious opposition. Is that any reason to abandon the pursuit altogether? Roe v. Wade set the precedent for dealing with abortion, and it was met with religious opposition. No one was forced to have an abortion; it simply gave women a choice. In the same manner, perhaps an even more benign manner, a legalization of gay marriage would not force anyone to be married, but simply grant people a choice. Every day my peers stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I stand beside them, my lips silent, as they speak of a nation under some god that is very foreign to me, and yet, I find myself standing in silence every day. My standing does not represent indecisiveness about my faith, but rather a respect for the faith and actions of others. Are my actions immoral for not standing up for what I believe? Or is acknowledging the nature of America’s ideologies while enduring glares from those who believe my actions are immoral much more patriotic than mindlessly reciting words whose meaning we have forgotten?

Could allowing heterosexuals to marry be considered a special right? I mean, by doing so, you’re allowing a select group of people tax breaks, special rights in court, and an estimated thousand other rights, some large and some small. Are special rights not forbidden? We cannot pass a law protecting ourselves from hate crimes, because it would be special protection. That is—the Matthew Sheppard Act, an act that would have added sexual orientation as grounds for a hate crime, was declared by many as a special protection law. Does that not also make heterosexual marriage a special protection? But rather than oppose marriage in general, I propose that marriage should be extended to all people, regardless of their gender or gender identity. Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, marriage in the eyes of the law is a very important right, one integral to the lives of literally millions of people living in the United States today.

In conclusion, the reader should recall the world of a Greek story. In Plato’s Symposium, all humans were created as two attached back to back. These people were one, with four arms, four legs, and a soul suited to one another so well that they were much more powerful than today’s human. Some of theses couples were female and male, some were male and male, and some were female and female. These beings began to become so powerful that they began to plot a way to make their way to the heavens and replace the gods. At first, Zeus thought to destroy mankind, but that was not the best solution. Instead, he decided to cut them in two. If he were to cut them in two it would both double the offerings given to the gods and make humans significantly less formidable, and thus the gods agreed to carry out his plan. Naturally the humans were upset, and thus Zeus granted them the ability to have intercourse, thus symbolically reuniting the halves. And that is where the concept of the soulmate was born.

Is the society that is so predominantly heterosexual so frightened by this story that they believe that if lesbians and gays were granted marriage they might plot their way into the highest reaches of society and overturn modern ideologies with such an impassioned vehemence that all any have ever known will be thrown out onto the street with a resounding scream of metal against concrete?

Gay marriage should be legalized because, regardless of one’s religion, morality and legality are entirely separate. While one can argue until the end of days on a religious level that gay marriage is immoral and undesirable, one can also argue that in these United States each is entitled to his or her (or a gender neutral their) own religious freedom by law.

The ban against gay marriage is not an established one. In Massachusetts, it took Goodridge v. The Department of Public Health in order to legalize gay marriage, when a simple examination reveals a myriad of reasons that same-sex marriage should not be banned in the first place. It is unfortunate that there are such stigmas attached to some minority groups that people would choose to stare blindly ahead, instead of understanding what is around them. And that— that is exactly what my opposition has chosen to do.

How is it that my opposition can deny the legitimacy of love? How is it that the state in the so-called land of the free offers rights to some and denies the same rights to others? If intolerance is unacceptable on an individual level, intolerance on a state level is surely unacceptable and needs to be remedied.