Gay Marriage – Right, Wrong, or Both?

Marriage: Questioning Status Quo

Forgive me, Readers, yet another lengthy blog… I’ve been on a writing rampage lately! However, I did spare all of you the annotated bibliography. Geez, I’m such a dork! lol. So, you might notice citations – just ignore them, I didn’t feel like removing them. It was already time consuming writing this without removing the citations.

How Gays Have Saved the World by Not Marrying: Using the Heterosexual Example of What Not to Do

Assume for a moment that the only considerable reason for marriage is for the purpose of procreation. Under this hypothetical assumption, legislation has passed that allows heterosexual couples to marry only if they provide confirmation of their intention and ability to reproduce. This legislation naturally excludes sterile or infertile heterosexual couples on the basis that it undermines the concept of marriage and claims these unions offer no significant contribution to the survival of the human race (Vatican). They are therefore to be regarded as noncitizens. In addition, imagine that the Vatican has just labeled these heterosexual marriages not only moot, but also that these couples are merely a tolerated evil. Their former marriage has been reduced to be considered nothing more than a sex act based on selfishness. Despite the fact that this heterosexual couple has decided to commit their lives to one another, their love is an inconsequential factor according to society’s perception of the core purpose of marriage. In the spirit of Neo-Nazism and religious intolerance, conservative right wing groups have made it their agenda to attack this minority group of sterile individuals, ensuring that they remain ineligible for equal rights. This is a strong claim, but considering the absurdity of the religious right’s arguments, it is not entirely out of order. The reality is that this is actually happening to homosexual couples. Although sterile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, homosexual couples are denied this basic right simply because they are unable to reproduce. However, many homosexual couples can and do reproduce. This legislation that bans gay marriage is based primarily on religious influence. The exclusion of gays from the right to marry is obviously just a large-scale attack on this minority group. The purpose: to perpetuate the institutionalization of homophobia in American culture under the guise that those who cannot reproduce and are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. The ability to procreate and religious perspective should have no relevance in the decision to legalize gay marriage. Allowing religious views to dictate legislation would be a violation of Separation of Church and State and privacy. Margaret Denike supports this point in her essay titled Religion, Rights and Relationships: The Dream of Relational Equality by saying, “Without [a separation between law and religion] we forfeit both human rights and freedom of religion” (Denike 77). She substantiates this view by further saying that forcing religious views on society in general is incongruent with the democratic principles of the American Consitution (qtd. in 77). Secondly, the status quo must be challenged in order to preserve the concept of democracy and equality. The purpose of our government is to protect the rights of all citizens without exclusion and prejudice. Finally, marriage is a statement of commitment, not procreation.From a legal standpoint, my first reason for supporting gay marriage is that the U.S. Consitution clearly states that there should be a separation of church and state. In her essay Gay Marriage: An American and Feminist Dilemma, Ann Ferguson articulates this point. She states that the sanctity of marriage is a religious concept and refusal to allow gay marriage based on that notion forces a religious view marriage on those that may not follow that religion (Ferguson 40). In accordance with Separation of Church and State, this is not a valid claim for refusal. In his testimony before a Wisconsin Legislative Committee, John Kusch raises important questions. “Who owns marriage? Who defines marriage? Who allows marriage and who enforces it?” (Kusch par. 3) It cannot be defined, controlled and enforced on both a governmental level and a religious level simultaneously because this would violate Separation of Church and State. If religious principles of marriage overlap the government’s principles of marriage, it is thereby forcing all of society to involuntarily accept the religious definition as their own.As you read, you will understand how this violation is cleverly, although hypocritically, avoided by masking the issue behind the ability to procreate as the determining factor of marriage eligibility in order to segregate and dehumanize homosexuals. In addition, the government’s attempt to ban gay marriage results in an invasion of privacy. It is beyond the government’s scope of authority to regulate “the most private of acts (sexual conduct) in the most private of places (the home)” (Carpenter par. 7). “In the United States…state governments have allowed religious sexual doctrine to dictate limits to the legal recognition of relationships…that fail[s]…to justify the discriminatory exclusion” (Denike 72). “American Republican Party loyalists make faith a criterion of political leadership and entrust their leaders to take whatever steps necessary, including suspending constitutional rights, to eradicate the ‘evil’ that allegedly threatens the liberties of the people” (qtd. in 72). “…[it is] ’straightforwardly immoral’ for state actors to speak, act or create laws that violate these rights in response to pressure from a religious group, but it is also incompatible with the basic rights of citizens” (qtd. in Denike 74). “Arguments against same-sex marriage – be they from tradition, definition, or morality – are all ‘essentially religious in nature’” (qtd. in Denike 78).

Secondly, heterosexual couples enjoy many benefits of marriage that homosexual couples are denied. Although many gay couples function relatively identical to straight couples, they are denied the same rights. This contradicts the government’s responsibility to ensure that all citizens are allowed equal rights. The benefits of the right to marry include the following: Social Security, Federal Income Tax deductions, partner immigration, survivor’s benefits, pension, spousal and child support, inheritance rights and access to children or property (Denike 77). The primary factor that determines who shall receive these benefits is marriage. The prohibition of gay marriage denies homosexual couples all of these benefits, the freedom of choice and dignity. This is ultimately discrimination. The Institute on Religion and Public Life, a research institute, states that gay marriage is a natural progression toward equal rights. This extension of the right to marry is “on a moral and legal continuum with extending rights to blacks and women” (IRPL 2). Failure to realize discrimination against gays rights, such as marriage “contradict[s] the foundational values and institutions of our society” (IRPL 2). It significantly disadvantages this culture and classifies gays as non-citizens, at best.

It cannot be ignored that homosexuals do in fact contribute to the funding of the very government benefits to which they are denied. Again, the determining factor that determines access to these benefits is marriage. As this essay is written, the conservative right is proposing a federal amendment that would ban gay marriage, thereby ensuring that gays will never benefit from the same rights that heterosexuals are afforded. According to Dale Carpenter, a professor at University of Minnesota Law School, this undemocratic amendment would strip the ability of individual states to “affirm individual rights,” which is traditionally each state’s decision (Carpenter par. 5). Not only does this rob states of their rights, it systematically denies rights to homosexuals. This oversteps legal boundaries that have been clearly outlined. Not only is this overstepping boundaries, it is unnecessary. The majority of states, thirty-seven to be exact, already refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. Carpenter clarifies, “It is a solution in search of a problem [that does not exist].” It would be like sending an army to kill a mouse – a realistically non-threatening mouse at that (par. 5).

My final reason to allow gay unions is that marriage has evolved over time and is therefore no longer a statement of procreation, but rather a statement of commitment. Many political parties and religious institution define marriage as a form of agreement to procreate. Categorizing marriage’s purpose as simply procreative in nature excludes the ability for “all members of society to flourish, given the fact that ‘in almost every conceivable concrete way were are…vastly unequal in our needs and abilities’” (qtd. in Denike 74). Realizing in effect, our differences require legislation to accommodate the evolution of the definition of marriage. Regardless of reproductive intention, all members should be allowed to follow their bliss and pursuit of happiness – or shall I say “gayness,” pun intended. See: gaiety. Returning to the seriousness of the matter, Jonathan Rauch, a writer for the Economist illustrates that the right and necessity to be looked after applies to heterosexual as well as homosexual couples. Marriage solidifies this bond and security of knowing that someone is there during unforeseen events, irregardless of sterility or reproductive status. He drives this point home by saying that the AIDS crisis has made the need for gay marriage apparent. “If that crisis has shown anything, it is that homosexuals can and will take care of each other, sometimes with breathtaking devotion” (Rauch 2-3). In order to protect the bond that homosexual couples have, reproductive status should be a non-issue in the decision to allow gay marriage.

The most common argument, presented quite primitively is the statement that marriage is meant to be “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” In other words, marriage is “the union between a man and a woman” (IRPL par. 9). An equally popular view is that “[Children] would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood… [which] is not conducive to [realizing] their full human development.” The Vatican further supports this view by claiming that gay marriages are “immoral unions” and would have detrimental effects on society. Not only would they harm society, but homosexuals cannot reproduce “naturally” and therefore “do not contribute to the survival of the human race” (Vatican 1). In other words, they serve no function. Religious parties believe that gay marriage would harm children, and according to the child-centered view, “Marriage and family law is, above all, about children” (IRPL 2). It is also a common stereotype that homosexuals are not monogamous. Finally, it is widely accepted that homosexuality is wrong and can be resisted or changed. In summary, the opposing view establishes that homosexuals are not monogamous, cannot procreate, and that their behavior is immoral and harmful to society, children and the human race. Gays will therefore degrade marriage as we know it.

In order for religious institutions and conservatives to execute their anti-gay agenda, they have adopted a child-centered, anti-gay view claiming that it is harmful for a child to be raised without both a mother and a father. Homosexuals are known for having a very androgynous mindset and adopt gender roles accordingly. The homosexual mind is usually neither absolutely masculine nor feminine, but seamlessly blends mental characteristics of both genders. In this sense, children would not be living without either a mother or father role other than biologically. This could quite possibly result in the child growing up to be far less maladjusted than they would be from a heterosexual marriage. For example, half of American children do not live with their original parents (Harrop par. 2). Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce while many of their failures are due to heterosexual inability to maintain monogamy, thereby tearing children away from their parents. In light of all this, homosexuals rather than heterosexuals are blamed for the degradation and immorality of marriage? Rauch states, “Children are not a trivial reason for marriage; they just cannot be the only reason” (Rauch 2). Perhaps it is better not to reproduce in the first place. Escalating issues such as poverty and inadequate childcare as a result of overpopulation suggest that perhaps the world “is better off with fewer, not greater, numbers of children” (Ferguson 47).

To address the claim that homosexuals cannot reproduce “naturally” and “do not contribute to the survival of the human race.” This claim is simply not true. As stated previously, many homosexuals are quite capable and do reproduce. It is not as uncommon as many people think for gay couples to have children whether this is through adoption, prior marriage or artificial insemination. “If the presence of children is the test, then homosexual relationships can certainly pass it” (Rauch par. 2). If intent to reproduce is a qualifying factor, then sterile heterosexual couples should also be considered when determining the right to marry. Of course, that is under the assumption that the core purpose of marriage is actually reproduction and nothing more. If this assumption is passed as a defining factor in legislation, then birth control and sterile heterosexuals should also be denied the right to marry without entitlement to tax breaks or any other benefit. I will concede that the stereotype that gay men are not monogamous may be true, but the opposing view must also concede that heterosexuals are also not monogamous. Froma Harrop, an editor for the Rhode Island Providence Journal, revealed the following statistic: “Twenty percent of gay males who had participated in a ‘commitment ceremony’ did not practice monogamy…twenty-four percent of married heterosexual men have had sex with partners other than their wives” (Harrop 1). Perhaps while throwing stones, the anti-gay right wing should consider Newt Gingrich and his three wives’ “blatant disregard for the vows of marriage, social conservatives still sit at the former House speaker’s knee for lectures on saving American civilization” (Harrop 1).

Finally, everyone does not subscribe to the view that homosexuality is a disorder or immoral. The American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders nearly two decades ago. As for what the Vatican terms “the toleration of evil,” their views of homosexuality as evil provide no substantiated evidence other than an obscure, ancient text that offers no intelligible explanation of why it is evil and exactly how gays are going to ruin the world other than, “because they say so.” The church’s endorsement is neither required nor is it appropriate on a governmental level. “The state’s recognition of same-sex civil marriages has no bearing on the freedom of officials…to sanction religious marriages as they see fit” (Denike 74). If religious approval is sought, these laws do not negate that option. However this approval cannot be made to be mandatory.

However each individual defines marriage is a matter of personal choice. Religious and political views should have no bearing on the regulation of this definition. Such regulation would be an invasion of personal privacy, a violation of the Separation of Church and State and a breach of human rights for both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Hypocrisy in political and religious groups is evidently an attempt to discriminate and vilify homosexuals through the promotion of anti-gay propaganda. This is the true harm to society and is an insult to marriage. Marriage as we know it is clearly falling apart, which is evident through high divorce rates. It is not homosexuals who are responsible for the degradation of marriage, but rather the heterosexual norm. Gays should no longer be regarded as non-citizens that are not entitled to equal rights. As someone who identifies as gay, perhaps I will marry and perhaps I will not. Either way, I would like to know that the option is there so that during my final days I knew that there was someone there to “catch me while I fall”…legally.