Who would have ever thought the word marriage could so bitterly divide this country? Same sex couples have been struggling for years to gain recognition, to have their unions formally recognized, and to stop discrimination against them based on their lifestyle. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom brought this struggle back to the national headlines over Valentine’s Day weekend when he ordered the city clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples and sparked a national debate about the issue. Same sex unions should be legal and recognized by all 50 states because failing to grant the rights of marriage to same sex couples is blatant discrimination.

The whole sticking point for this whole debate is the word “marriage.” People who look to the religion for the definition define marriage as a union between a man and woman to establish the means for having and raising children. Religious groups believe that homosexuality is wrong and against God’s will because a same sex relationship can’t produce children. Using this logic, individuals who are sterile, too old, or who don’t want children wouldn’t be allowed to marry either.

When President Bush announced his support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman he contended that, “a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.” (Gilgoff, et al 28). For being “one of the most fundamental institutions of civilization” the institution of marriage has actually changed quite a bit in the United States during the last fifty years alone. Up until World War II many states wouldn’t recognize divorces granted in other states and as recently as 1966 many states outlawed interracial marriage. It wasn’t until 1967 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that laws prohibiting interracial marriages violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution (Cannon 30). Marriage is an institution that changes with society; the idea that the definition of marriage is written in stone and can’t be changed just isn’t true.

People who are against same sex marriage use a slippery slope argument; if gay marriages are allowed then sooner or later there will be no limit to the types of marriage allowed. We will have to eventually allow marriages between a man and a child, or a man and an animal. This argument has no basis in reality and all it does is play off peoples’ fears. The central issue in this debate is the fair and equal treatment under the law. Married couples enjoy many benefits to being married; the federal government extends over 1,000 benefits to married couples including joint Federal tax benefits and hospital visitation rights (Cannon 30). Gay partners who have been together for years are not allowed to enjoy these basic rights because they aren’t allowed to obtain a license from the state recognizing their union. The first same sex couple to be married in San Francisco has been in a loving and committed relationship for over 50 years without the benefits of marriage (Breslau, Stone 43). That’s an impressive feat considering a majority of heterosexual marriages will end in divorce.

Opponents of same sex marriages often cite the bible to condemn the gay lifestyle. They will often cite obscure references to the destruction of whole cities because of homosexuality. It’s important to realize that whenever religious groups seek to impose their will on others bad things happen. September 11th 2001 is one of the more recent examples of bloodshed in the name of religion, but history books are full of stories that tell of brutal campaigns carried out in the name of religion. According to major religions homosexuality is wrong, so is killing people but our government kills people on a regular basis in the name of law and order. The same sex marriage issue is all about equal protection and benefits under the law and these rights are being denied to a group of people simply because other people don’t condone their lifestyle. If homosexuality is wrong, then that’s between the individual and their God. It is not the role of the Government to deny the rights of marriage to a group of people because a majority of the country doesn’t understand their lifestyle.

Another popular argument is the United States government must preserve the sanctity of marriage, another religious idea. Allowing same sex couples would not erode the institution of marriage. The institution of marriage has already been eroded by heterosexual couples. In today’s world marriage is almost like a game, people enter into the contract lightly, taking it for granted. Same sex couples would be less likely to take marriage for granted because they’ve been fighting for so long to obtain it. If anything the laws against gay marriage are hurting the institution of marriage in the long run. Gay marriage is not legally recognized through out the country, so thousands are flocking to San Francisco to be married because it may be the only chance they get.

If the very word “marriage” is that sacred to people then the government should just abandon it for a less volatile term. The government could call all unions between two people, regardless of sex, civil unions. In many European nations the whole marriage process is separated between church and state. People are married during a ceremony at their City Hall, later if they chose to they can have a religious ceremony at a church of their choice, the church is equally free to not marry the couple if the union violates the traditions of that faith (Lacayo 31).

Mayor Newsom said he wanted to put a human face on the same-sex marriage debate and that he has. News magazines have been running many photographs of the same sex ceremonies in San Francisco. Many of the pictures show normal, loving couples, beaming with pride that they were finally able to officially express their love for each other before their family and friends. The people in these photos show the human face of homosexuality in America. Homosexuals are not the scary people that some would have us believe. They don’t want to convert the world to their lifestyle and they’re not seeking special privileges. All they want is the chance to be happy with the one they love and to have their love validated by the state. The photographs show normal people with normal human needs; the need to love and to be loved, the need to be accepted, and the need to be able to cement their bonds in a meaningful way. No one is saying that the idea of same-sex marriage be forced onto churches who believe same-sex relationships are immoral. But in a democracy we believe that everybody’s rights must be protected, even if we don’t agree with the way they live their lives. Same sex couples should be able to take advantage of all the same rights and benefits that their heterosexual counter parts are able to enjoy.

Works Cited

Breslau, Karen, and Brad Stone.

“Outlaw Vows.” Newsweek. 01 March 2004: 40-44.

Cannon, Angie.

“A Legal Maze—And More to Come.” U.S. News & World Report. 08 March 2004: 30. Academic Search Elite. EBSCOhost. Kirkwood CC Lib. 22 March 2004 www.epnet.com

Gilgoff, Dan, Kenneth T. Walsh, Terence Samuel, Justin Ewers.

“Tied in Knots by Gay Marriage.” U.S. News & World Report. 08 March 2004: 28. Academic Search Elite. EBSCOhost. Kirkwood CC Lib. 22 March 2004 www.epnet.com

Lacayo, Richard.

“For Better or For Worse.” Time. 08 March 2004: 26-33.

 

This
work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.