Homosexual Marriage Should Be Supported
Same sex marriage is the union of two individuals who have a similar gender identity or are of similar biological sex. Regarding all the moral and political issues surrounding the global limelight, few have become as controversial as the gay marriage issue. Everybody has an opinion regarding this issue. People will either have a passionate support for gay marriages or vehemently reject the whole ideology; with both sides normally going vocal about their respective opinions (Leiblum, 8). The introduction of gay marriage has had a very varied jurisdiction that has resulted from marriage law legislative changes, challenges from courts and activists in relation to constitutional equality guarantees as well as rejection from the religious front. In some nations, permitting gay couples to marry allowed the replacement of the previous registered partnerships or civil unions.
Recognizing gay marriages is a political, civil rights, moral, social, and religious conundrum in numerous countries with America a good example. Time and again conflicts have risen over the legalization of gay marriage and what kinds of civil rights to grant; either grant limited rights with regard to marriage or equal rights in marriage, or deprive them any of the above rights ((Leiblum, 24). In my opinion, we should a logical way forward to end this conundrum in a way that all parties would be satisfied. My thoughts on this dwell legalizing gay marriage and solicit for social acceptance of this culture. I am in full support of homosexual marriages, especially in America.
Gay marriages in the United States should be dully legalized. Current society has overseen gay couples being denied their significant rights when they are barred from marriage, and this in my opinion is injustice. Any argument against gay marriage legalization does not merit to any valid legal support in the nation. The reason is that the state is not supposed to be bias and warrant support of the popular moral opinion. Instead, it should consider the rights of all its concerned citizens. In 1997, the Federal Government General Accounting Office submitted a report that highlighted on 1050 laws giving right and support of heterosexual marriage. Gay couples are however denied these rights (Cantor, 13). The New Jersey Law Journal makes an insight of the kinds of rights denied to gay couples. For example, gay couples who are barred from marriage are excluded from accessing a number of legal benefits, those pertaining to legally recognized marriage in particular. Others include a spouse’s access to disability and medical life, spousal benefits in retirement and annuity plans, right to withdraw from testifying against a spouse, and many others. These discrimination instances related to legally married couples preference has a negative effect to these people who are human beings equal to every one else. In addition, heterosexual couples who are not married have a choice of having a legal marriage. Same sex couples on the other hand do not enjoy such a benefit.
It is no doubt that our American society is moving in a positive direction. The gay marriage controversy has a similar linkage to a debate in out legal history during the 1950’s when miscegenation laws were predominant. These laws had a provision that prevented marriage between couples of different races; in other words, whites and blacks were not allowed to marry. Hannah Arendt, a journalist and social activist, argued that a people had the right to engage in marriage with whosoever they please and that this was an elementary human right. She went on to assert that rights to attend school, right to sit in any place in a bus, right to access an amusement place or recreational area regardless of ones race or skin color were much minor compared to those of matrimony. Even rights in politics such as right to vote as well as other rights highlighted in the American constitution are not as fundamental as right to liberty, life and pursuit of happiness; and to this right category relates to ones right to marriage and a home. Therefore, would any American heterosexual accept the constitution and believe they have been granted the right to look for personal happiness if they he is barred from marriage? This would not be the case. They would expect the constitution and the state to be in full support of their decision (Meezan, 67). In another scenario, take for example a situation where one is denied the right to participate in voting exercises in the next general elections, compared to someone who is denied attachment to a soul mate. These two scenarios are different on large scales. No one has an obligation or right to deny someone the right to marry whomever he chooses; something that is guaranteed in the constitution.
In addition, failing to legalize gay marriage is a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Due Process Clause in the American constitution. As it states “the law (against same sex marriage) is discrimination based on sex as it subjects one choice to marry depended to their gender.” The ACLU goes on to assert that any classification that has view of discriminating an individual on a gender basis must have substantial relation to an important government purpose. By itself, tradition is not a valid government purpose. Discrimination in relation to sex is therefore not permissible (Cantor, 42). Nowhere in the constitution or the Declaration of Independence is tradition preservation cited as the government’s intention or power. There is no basis in the constitution that denies gay couples the right to gay marriage. More so, every constitutional reason warrants the government to pursue gay marriage legalization as a means of granting gay couples their equal citizen rights in the United States, and to guarantee them the inalienable right of pursuing their own happiness. The purpose of the United States government is to safeguard its citizen’s rights, and my thoughts on this context are that it has dully failed in its duties. In our history, society deemed interracial marriage between whites and blacks as unnatural and perverted. The Supreme Court came out and aired its defense on peoples’ rights in response to prejudiced protests (Meezan, 51). At this time and age, no one would even have the knack of thinking or protesting against the marriage between a white and black couple. If so, then it would be deemed racial prejudice. In my view, if gay marriage is legalized, society will get to a point where discriminating it would be considered a prejudiced protest (LA Weekly, 7).
With all the heightened debate whether to legalize gay marriage or not, there have been numerous responses against this move. Protesters argue that homosexual relationships do not bear a natural bearing. Their school of thought is that couples of the same sex do not have the capability of siring children. In my argument, I think a strange consequence would always result if marriage was undertaken for the sole purpose of procreation. If this was the case, laws should prevent marriage between individuals who are either sterile or impotent. In additional, in the same argument, why are women who have passed menopause allowed to marry? They should also be sidelined of procreation was the main goal in marriage, should it not? The main idea of marriage is that it achieves more than just the perceived ideology of procreation, but also includes interpersonal commitment, pursuit of happiness and moral expression.
Another common argument made by protesters is that the struggling marriage institution will further degrade if gay marriage is legalized. Conservatives assert that the most fundamental institution in society lies behind marriage. To prevent any class or group of people from making their own choices in marriage is a massive deprivation. not long ago interracial marriages in America were illegal, and no one right can have valid grounds of claiming that this relates to trivial disenfranchisement. In relation to the same, it would therefore be correct to assert that marriage between people of the same sex cannot lead to bad things. Currently, there has been significant maturity and is no longer dominated by traditional marriage arguments. Back in our history, women were not allowed to own property let alone go to work. All property was registered under the husband’s name and a woman’s place was at home to cook and clean. Times have changed and society has seen many women achieve great heights on a global front. All this has been because of marriage law reforms. Therefore, it would only be fair if they would be further reformed to allow for exceptional homosexual rights in marriage (The Villager, 5).
Some conservatives such as Professor Mark Stressor are advocating for gay marriage to be accepted both legally and socially. He along with other conservative advocates declares that stability in same sex relationships would be achieved if gay marriage were allowed; this would reduce the promiscuity in gay relationships. In his support, the interests of the state have a view of promoting and recognizing marriage stability, and limiting breakdown and disorganization of human relations, and provide homes for child rearing and production. Therefore, no one can be in a position to argue that gay parties practice promiscuity if at all they are not allocated adequate institutions that limit societal promiscuity.
In addition, protagonists to this concept argue that the very idea of gay couples raising children is seemingly a huge anathema (Meezan, 7). My opinion is in rejection of this school of thought. There is no documented or any cause of concern that insinuates gay couples’ children (either adopted or biological) live in poor detrimental or harm filled environments. In fact, children raised in gay families normally exhibit better adjustment qualities when compared to those who come from “normal families”. With regard to Albert Baques, a social worker in the Ministry of Families and Children, he declares that gay and lesbian anathema, in relation to child rearing assumptions, has a reflection on homophobia and the ideology that a “normal” family structure has practical superiority to a gay family. Protestors normally fear that children raised by gay parents are destined to grow up and become gays or lesbians, and that this suggestion would lead to an awful society (Meezan, 25). However, human biology is against this argument. Being gay has high linkage and dependence to a person’s genetic structure. Every individual, male or female, has a significant amount opposite sex hormones in their genes. Alterations in genes sometimes result to a higher than normal concentration of opposite sex hormones in a person’s genes. In case of a man, he will normally exhibit feminine properties and have an attraction for women. The opposite is true in the case of women. Therefore, if this is considered, rearing children with normal gene structures would in no way lead them to being gays or lesbians. Therefore, being gay is normally not a personal choice, but is determined by nature’s ways in some cases. No one is therefore in a position to pass judgment to a gay individual. In addition, in order for a gay couple to prove that they are worthy parents and be granted parenting privileges, they have to make provisions that the child in question will not grow up to become gay. Therefore, society can be guaranteed that these child’s futures have been dully considered. In addition to this fact, research conducted concluded that over three hundred children raised by gay couples in thirteen different samples had exhibited no change or evidence in alteration of their sexual identity and behavior.
Moreover, common studies show that children raised by gay couples are normally healthy and grow up to lead their intended heterosexual lives. If a Christian coupled was informed that their child would grow up to prophesy a religion other than Christianity, this would definitely spark controversy in the family. However, this is what gay couples have to comprehend when bringing up their children. The only way children can provide evidence that their parents did not inflict harm to them is through leading heterosexual lifestyles (Meezan, 31). In support of this, I doubt no gay couple would wish their children to undergo the same prejudice and struggles. Nevertheless, if venting out negative views that those children will grow up to become horrible just like their parents – my thoughts regard that as a degrading psychological torture. The other problem associated with the assumption that children from gay families exhibit an inferior environment is this: an argument that gay couples and their children are forms units that are inconsistent with the American life mainstream. However, in reality, most families do not exhibit qualities of the perceived traditional families with a mother and a father who normally go to work and pick up their kids in the evening. In accordance with the Bureau o Census Statistics, many children in today’s society are born out of wedlock to impoverished, minority, single women. In addition, many marriages today almost certainly end up in divorces. It is therefore unrealistic to think that children only have a chance of leading successful lives if they are brought up a family with an idealized concept (Leiblum, 61).
In conclusion, I would like to air my view that gay marriages should be legalized in America as well as other regions that exhibit social prejudice towards these human beings. It does not make any sense to deny any one their deserved right to make a personal choice of lifestyle. Doing so would be a selfish and biased based argument. The sole responsibility of ensuring that the gay society is accepted mainly rests with the government. It should pass laws that grant laws that consider gay people their rights as equal citizens of the United States of America. In my opinion, if gay marriages are legalized and socially accepted, we can only be destined to more forward as a state conscious of other people’s interests. It is my hope that my argument will provide a better understanding of this controversy. We should all be in support of homosexuals in America. Just like everybody else, gay people are human beings with personal interests.
Cantor, Donald J. Same-sex Marriage: The Legal and Psychological Evolution in America. Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 2006. Print.
LA Weekly. “New Gay-Marriage War Coming to California”. By Patrick Range McDonald. 03/11/2009.
Leiblum, Sandra. “Gay Marriage: Notes from North America.” Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 19.4 (2004): 361-362. Print.
Meezan, William, and Jonathan Rauch. “Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children.” Future of Children. 15.2 (2005): 97-115. Print.
TheVillager. “Gay in the 1960s — the time was ripe for revolution” By Warren Allen Smith. June 18-24 2003.
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_8/gayinthe60.html (accessed 3/12/2009).
Copyright 2018 - Coaching WordPress Theme.