This is a personal paper on gay marriage. All information has been researched. PLEASE DO NOT COPY IT!
Imagine you have been in love with your partner for 10 years. You have lived in a monogamous relationship for the entire time. You also have a kid that you both are raising. Together you both have built a nice life for you and your child. You own your own home and your own car. Then one day you receive a call from the hospital saying that your partner is in the hospital, and probably won’t survive through the night. What do you do? If this were to happen to a straight couple there would be no problem. That partner would be given rights to visit their partner in the hospital. They would also have no problem collecting death benefits offered to spouses. There also, would be no question of the cusidy of the kid.
Now think about the same situation from the view of a homosexual couple. Because your partnership is not reconzied by the government you are not able to collect death benefits, you could potentially lose rights to any belongings your partner owned, there is also the possibility of losing the child you raised for 10 years because you are not the biological parent. Does that seem at all fair? Homosexual couples are being treated as second class citizens. They are being denied their fundamental right to marriage. The soluntion to this problem is full civil marriage reconigezed by both the state and federal government, civil union is not enough to solve this problem.
There is a lot of confusion between what a civil union, civil marriage, or marriage is. When one describes a civil union they are often describing what Vermont has done. Gay couples are allowed to be issued a licsence that will give them the rights that married couples have in the state. Civil unions do not, however, given any federal rights to the couple. According to the Human Rights Campaign, people who enter into a civil union in Vermont do not received 1,100 federal benefits and protections that married couples do. Because civil unions are so limiting there is need for more to be done. The step above civil unions, that would provide those rights is marriage. Full marriage for gay couples would give them rights not only in the state but rights with our federal government. They would now be able to receice those 1,100 benefits not offered under a civil union.
One idea that has come out of the idea of a civil union is the idea of a civil marriage. A civil marriage is the same a civil union but it would also give federal protections. In the essay “Will it be marriage or civil union”, Jo Ann Citron describes the term marriage as “a conservative institution, and persons who enter it with the blessing of the state may not leave it without the state’s permission.” The description of marriage as a conservative institution is used to desitiguse marriage for religious perposes. The idea of a civil marriage is one that is honored by the state and federal government but not by religious institutions. The reason she makes this distection is to point out that marriage is religious institution that the government attaches material benfits to. By allow civil marriage religious institutions would not be required to preform these marriages
The idea of civil unions and full marriage bring up an idea that was used in American history with blacks and the civil rights movements. The idea of separate but equal has been brought up dealing with civil unions and full marriage. Is it ok for the government to honor a civil union as long as it is equal to marriage? The answer is no. Civil unions are not equal to marriage. The idea of separate but equal came our of the the idea of segeragation in schools. As long as the schools were equal it is ok to have them be separate. The problem with this idea is that separate but equal is never equal. Because they are not equal the only option is full gay marriage.
Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Court agreed that anything but full gay marriage is unconstitutional. In the court case GOODRIDGE vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, the question before the court was if it is legal to prevent couples of the same-sex from marrying. The court ruled that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts “has failed to identify any constitutionality adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples." They went on to add that “The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.” The ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court left the State Legislator with the task of finding the best way to implement their marriage laws, while still abiding by their state constitution. In the end the only thing their legislators could do was to allow civil marriages. A civil union would not be sufficient in meeting the requirements of the state constitution. A civil union would create a second-class citizen. Because of this ruling it has caused conservative state legislators around the country to find ways to protect marriage in their state.
The fear of gay marriage has even spread to the President of the United States. President Bush has gone as far as to call for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The reason the fear is so high is conservative politicians are afraid that because Massachusetts allows gay marriage other state will be required to honor those marriages in their state. In 1996, President Clinton, Signed the Defense of Marriage act, which said states could pass laws that ban same sex marriage in their state. Now that gay marriage is allowed in one state the Defense of Marriage Act is viewed as unconstitutional. According to the United States Constitutions under the Full Faith and Credit Act, states are required to honor the contracts of other states. For example, if I have a drives license in one state I can still legal drive in other states. Another example is, if one straight couple marries in one state they can then move to another state and have that marriage recognized. The fear from the Massachusetts gay marriage case comes from the fact that other states may now be required to honor the marriages in Massachusetts. To solve this problem, the federal government has proposed a constitutional amendment.
One argument for gay marriage is if the state doesn’t allow couples of the same-sex to marry they are discriminating against that couple. Our government recognizes a few rights they deem as fundamental rights, the fundamental rights that have been recognized by the Court thus far include the First Amendment rights, the right to vote, the right of privacy, and the right to marry. Because the right to marry is a right that everyone is supposed have, by denying gay couples this right the state is discriminating against them because they are gay. Now one could argue that the right isn’t being withheld from gay couples. Gay couples are free to marry; they just have to marry a person of the opposite gender. This brings up the question of weather or not homosexual behavior is a choice or part of ones nature.
If homosexual behavior was something people hand complete control over, it could be justified to discriminate against them. But if homosexual behavior is something that you are born with or learn early on in development it would be much like your race or gender. Those are both things that the individual have no control over. In the Second District U.S. court case of Watkins vs. United States Army, the very idea of weather or not your sexual orientation was a choice or an involuntary action was questioned. The court ruled that it is “abhorrent for [the] government to penalize a person for refusing to change them [their sexual orientation], regardless of how easy that change might be physically.” The idea that comes from this court case is that your sexual orientation is not something one can control. The question the court asked is would heterosexual people be willing to change their sexual preference. “Would heterosexuals living in a city that passed an ordinance banning those who engaged in or desired to engage in sex with persons of the opposite sex find it easy not only to abstain from heterosexual activity but also to shift the object of their sexual desires to person of the same sex?” The answer to that question is no, straight couples would not alter their behavior; their heterosexual behavior is an involuntary action of one’s nature. Because sexual orientation is something involuntary of one’s nature it is much like a person’s race or gender, by the government discriminating because of sexual orientation they have created a second class citizen much like slaves in our history.
After the civil war the 14th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment was put in place to ensure that newly emancipated slaves would be treated equally under the law. The 14th Amendment says that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Two things that came from this amendment is that the government must provide due process of law before they deny yours rights and that everyone must be granted equal protection under the law. The equal protection clause not only said laws need to be applied equally but also helped to create groups of people that this laws is specifically designed to protect.
The courts have recognized race, alienage, gender, and nationality as classifications. The criteria for creating these classifications come from 4 factors that are looked at. The first factor is the group must have traits that the individual has no control over. The Second factor is if classification reflects historic and incorrect stereotypes with no basis in fact. The third classification says the group must represent a politically powerless minority. The fourth states that there must be a history of unequal treatment and discrimination. In order for a group to qualify for these classifications they must meet those standards. If we look at homosexuals to see if they fit these qualifications, arguments can be made for each.
If we look at the court case of Watkins vs. United States Army shows that it is an action that the person has no control over. There is also a history of incorrect stereotypes. Homosexuals are often believed to be pedophiles. Homosexuals also fit the third classification because currently there are very few openly homosexual people in political office. And people are often afraid to support homosexual rights, because of the stigma that is associated with it. The last classification is there must be discrimination against that group; discrimination is evident in that fact that gay couples cannot not marry. The reason these classifications are important is it shows that the gay community is a group that should be protected under the equal protection clause. With protection under the equal protection clause states could not prevent gay couples from marrying.
The next important thing that comes from the 14th amendment is the right to due process. The government is free to restrict behavior if they deem there is a compelling state interesting in prevent such behavior. The best example of due process is laws that prevented couples of different races from marrying. Because marriage is a fundamental right the only way that the government can take that right away from a citizen, there must be a fundamental state interest in doing so. In the case of interracial marriages there was no compelling state interest in preventing those couples from marrying. The same can be said for gay marriage. There are many arguments against gay marriage, but none show a compelling state interest in prevent marriage.
One argument against gay marriage is the idea that by allowing gay couples to marry it will open the door for people to marry animals or polygamist marriages. First, the idea that by allowing gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals is absurd. There are many factors that separate humans from animals. Humans are capable of having rational thoughts as well as are able to consent to marriage. Animals can not do either of those acts, so cannot enter into a marriage with a human. As for the matter of polygamist marriages gay marriage is very different from that as well. Polygamist marriages are often incestuous relationships between adults and children who cannot consent to marriage. Gay marriage would be between two adults who are consenting to be married, much as straight couples do everyday.
Another argument often used against gay marriage is the idea that marriage is for the purpose of procreation. But this argument has its flaws as well. When heterosexual couples marry they are not required to show they can procreate. It is assumed that they can. So couples who cannot procreate would not be allowed to marry if the argument were to hold true. One should also look at older couples who marry. There are many couples who are past the child baring age who will remarry. It is obvious that older couples past child baring age cannot procreate so they would also not be allowed to marry if this argument were true. Another problem with this argument is the fact that lesbian couples can bare children. One partner can take the egg from her body implant it in the body of the other female and have it artificially inseminated. So according to this argument lesbian couples could marry while straight elderly couples could not.
Family is also another argument used against gay marriage. Some how by gay couples marrying it is going to hurt the family structure. But in fact the opposite is true, by not allowing gay marriage you are hurting the family structure. According to the 2000 U.S. censuses there are between 1 million and 9 million children being raised by homosexual couples. Marriage is important for these families, if one partner were to be killing it can cause serious results for the entire family. Not only does it emotionally harm, them like any family, but they are also now faced with the burden of keeping the family together. If the partner who died was the one with the parental rights to the child, that child may now be removed from what they know as home. It also opens up the problems of getting benefits to the children if they have no rights to the kids. So by not allowing gay marriage you are hurting the family for those millions of children who are without parents who are married.
The family issue also brings up the question that “isn’t it better for a child to be raised by a mother and a father?” But in America we have 27% of children living in a single parent home, according to the U.S. Census Bureau of Household and Family Statistics. If the fact that the child won’t have both a mother and father is the reason gay marriage is wrong than we need to also look at our divorce rate among straight couples. By allowing gay marriage it is supporting those families and children who are all ready being raised in households with gay parents.
When it comes down to it, the biggest argument against gay marriage is it is immoral or ruins the sanctity of marriage. The question I have for you is when has it been our government’s job to legislate morality? If one looks to Texas and their anti-sodomy court case, which was an instance of the government trying to legislate what their citizens can do behind closed doors. Or the prohibitions laws of the 20’s. In that case the government went as far as to change our constitution to make alcohol illegal. In the end, both of those laws were over turned. Another case that is very similar to the gay marriage case is the interracial marriage. Because people thought it was wrong for interracial couples to marry they made a law against it. What is wrong for one may not be wrong for another.
President George W. Bush has gone as far as to say that sanctity of marriage needs to be protected. And to that I would ask how sacred is marriage? Marriage at one time was thought as between a man and women were the women was property of the man. America also has one of the highest divorce rates. It is reported by the Census Bureau that 50% of all marriage end in divorce. We also have television shows were people marry other people for money. If marriage is so sacred than 50% of all people who marry are wrong. With that being said, one may wonder why homosexual couples want to marry.
Same-sex couples exist in America already. The Census Bureau reports that there are an estimated 3,136,921 same-sex couples in America. They are living together, building futures together, and raising children together. Yet they are not protected should anything happen to one of them. Same-sex couples can be denied hospital visitation from their partner, social security benefits, immigration rights, health insurance for their partner or children, and more. By allowing gay couples to marry you are giving them the 1,100 right that civil unions do not give. These are rights that straight married couples can benefit from with no problems.
Marriage is one if the few rights that our government protects. They not only protect that right but attach benefits and privileges for being married. As an American citizen homosexual couples are entitles to the same protections and rights under the law. Homosexuals meet the requirements for protections under the establishment clause and the due process law. Because of that we need to be given access to the same things that all heterosexual couples are entitled to. Many people feel that instead of full gay marriage an alternative form is needed, such as civil unions. The problem with civil unions they do not provide the same rights, so they are no even separate and equal. The court has already ruled that homosexuality is not a choice, in the Watkins vs. United States Army. Homosexuals do not choose to be gay much as heterosexuals do not choose to be straight. Because of this the only option is for our government to allow same-sex couples to marry.
The first step in that process has already started in Massachusetts. Because states are required to honor the contracts of other states, according to the U.S. Constitution in the Full Faith and Credit Act, it is time for the other states to honor the Massachusetts marriages. In the end the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have the final ruling on this matter. They will get to decide if the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional and if same-sex marriages have to be honored by every state in the Union. When the Mass. Supreme Court gave their ruling they commented about the historic ruling they were passing down.
“We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Lawrence v. Texas (quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey.)”.
That is what has to happen today. No one is asking church’s to marry same-sex couples; all that is being asked is that the government give the same rights to all people, no matter their sexual orientation.
This is a personal paper on gay marriage. All information has been researched. PLEASE DO NOT COPY IT!