The fight for same sex marriage rights has been equated with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s, which fought for the equal rights of the African American community before the law. Just like the African Americans, gay rights activists are the minority in their fight for equal marriage rights in the constitution. Their campaign is supported by increasing public opinion and a clear shift in the political class to favor their cause. The opponents of the movement remain strong and have the constitution on their side. The debate on whether equal marriage rights will happen is no longer a matter of how but when.
Gay Marriage should be allowed
Same sex marriage is the legal union between two individuals from the same biological sex. The debate on whether to award marriage rights and subsequent benefits to gay couples has been raging since the early part of 1970. Since the turn of the new millennium, favorable public opinion on same sex marriages (SSM) has increased considerably. As of 7th of June 2012, eight states had undertaken legal measures to allow gay marriages. The state of Massachusetts was the first in 2004, it was followed by Connecticut (2008), Iowa (2009), Vermont (2009), New Hampshire (2010) and New York on 24th June 2011. On Valentine’s Day in 2012, Washington also joined the list of states in which same sex couples willing to tie the knot could be joined in matrimony. A similar law was also passed in Maryland on 1st March but the law will become effective on 1st January 2013.
Strasser (2011) argues that the federal government does not support same- sex marriages because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Under this act, marriage is specified to be between one man and one woman. The acts permits states to reject gay unions conducted in other states. Before DOMA was enacted on 21st September 1996, the Privacy Act regulated conception, procreation, child bearing, family relations, and marriage. The act does not specify the parties in marriage. The act could be interpreted to allow same sex marriages and a guarantee of privacy rights within this type of union. The individuals within SSM are free to decide whether to have a family with children or not. Couples have a myriad of options through which they can achieve this wish (Tara, 2012). Surrogacy, In-vitro Fertilization, and adoption are some of the available options. These procreation options are also available to heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive naturally. The Privacy Act should be amended to allow more personal freedoms especially with regard to gay rights (Sanders, S. (n.d.); Lupia, Krupnikov, Levine, Piston, & Von Hagen-Jamar, 2010).
According to Sullivan (2012), the US president Barrack Obama gave the highest political nod to the gay marriage debate. The president publicly declared his position during an interview on ABC. He admitted to have had a personal dilemma over the issue and had come to believe that same sex couples wishing to marry should be allowed to do so. This announcement made Obama the first President to support same sex marriages while in office. In the past, the former senator had shown his support for gay rights. During the 1990s while campaigning for his senatorial seat, he promised to fight against any efforts to prohibit gay marriages. Two former presidents Bill Clinton his counterpart Jimmy Carter have also voiced their support for legalization. This support was the highest indication yet that the political climate was slowly changing to allow advancement of gay rights (McCarthy, 2012).
Apart from the political class, religious organizations and advocacy groups have been in the forefront of campaigning against legalization of same sex unions (Tenety, 2012). The Family Research Council (FRC) and National Organization for Marriage (NOM) are some of the leading organizations fighting against legalization of homosexual unions. FRC terms these efforts as tantamount to a falsification and redefinition of the marriage institution. The council continues its campaign by supporting all federal and state amendments seeking to change court rulings and other legislation. NOM uses its website to shift focus from a myriad of gay rights issues to marriage, which the organization identifies as the only issue that really matters. The organization puts homosexuality and gay rights secondary to the constitution and heterosexual union, which is the traditionally accepted form of marriage. The proponents of SSM also have advocacy groups dedicated to their course. The Human Rights Campaign argues that homosexual couples also fall in love. To crown this love, they would also like to get married like their heterosexual counterparts. These individuals should not be denied the joy of making a legally binding commitment to their partner of choice.
The Debate
The fight for equal marriage rights for same sex couples has been equated to the civil rights movement. Proponents of SSM argue that marriage rights should be given to homosexual couples because they are a minority just as African Americans were. The Civil Rights Movement, which was at its peak between 1950 and 1980, was led by African Americans fighting for equal rights before the law (Lupia, Krupnikov, Levine, Piston, & Von Hagen-Jamar, 2010). This comparison does not hold academically because the decision to be gay is a choice and not a natural biological factor like being African American. To avoid discrimination, opponents argue that one can choose to marry a partner of the opposite sex. To counter this, researchers have gone as far as identifying a gay gene, which they claim, predisposes individuals to be gay. Psychologists have classified homosexuality as a natural and legitimate expression of sexuality. Same sex parents were also found to be as capable as heterosexual parents to raise well-balanced children were. Children raised by lesbian parents also perform marginally better in school than those of heterosexual parents. There is no academic justification for the federal position on gay marriage rights. The American Psychological Association and the Psychoanalytic Association view this position as outright discrimination and stigmatization of homosexuals based on their sexual orientation.
The definition of the institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is majorly based on the need for procreation. Natural procreation occurs in this form. Advances in medical research and family health have long eliminated the coitus for procreation to occur. Many couple now opts to use in vitro fertilization to become parents. Many more are choosing to adopt children. Marriage for procreation reasons is no longer reason enough to illegalize same sex marriages. Marriage should be a union of two individuals for better or for worse. No two heterosexual couples are guaranteed of the ability to conceive and have children naturally until they try (Chittom, 2011). This benefit of doubt should be extended to gay couples so that they can enjoy similar rights of creating a family just like infertile couples. Up to 100,000 children are available for adoption from federal childcare systems. More gay couples should be allowed to give these children a chance to grow in a loving home with doting parents.
The stability of the traditional marriage system is also at risk. Statistics indicate that up to 50% of all marriages end in divorce. The rate goes as high as 80% for second and subsequent marriages. The institution of marriage as we know it is therefore no longer as strong as its proponents portray it to be. Historically, communities allowed polygamy and other arrangements, which essentially stabilized the society. Marriages are falling apart because of the pressure to conform to societal norms, which not everyone can meet. Some divorces have been attributed to inherently gay individuals marrying individuals of the opposite sex so that they can fit in. Many more continue to live double lives without risking their heterosexual façade. Legalizing SSM would allow more people to marry within their true sexual orientation without fear of discrimination from the state (Yudell, 2012). Massachusetts one of the states which legalized same sex marriages has been recording some of the lowest divorce rates in the country. Between 203 and 2008, the state recorded a decline of 21% in divorce rates.
Discroll (2011) asserts that the decision to get married exceeds faith. Marriage is a personal choice and not a decision that should be controlled by faith based norms and cultural stereotypes. An individual should have the freedom to choose a partner and the right to marry their partner of choice. Many gay couples are choosing to live as partners until their states legalize their unions. Those who choose to travel and get married in any of the 8 states, which allow gay marriages, are faced with the dilemma of their union being rejected in their home states. Now many gay couples are unable to enjoy the same legal and financial benefits that heterosexual couples are entitled to. A gay couple cannot automatically transfer the power of attorney, inheritance or health related decision making to their partners. The homosexual partner of an American citizen cannot get citizenship by virtue of marriage. Same sex couples face numerous financial huddles especially through taxation. Only 18% of companies offer health care benefits to domestic partners. These companies also tax these benefits when provided to the partner. These couples are also unable to own homes jointly because of the risks that could arise after a catastrophe. Same sex couples are estimated to use $ 41,196 to $ 467,562 more in legal and other expenses compared to their heterosexual counterparts.
The New York City Comptroller indicated that the city would gain an additional $ 142 million from legalizing gay marriages. The state would get a boost of $184 million into its economy. The states and the federal government stand to gain economically from the legalization of gay marriages. The prohibitions put in place by constitutional amendments should be adjusted to reflect public opinion. The Obama government has already declared that it will not continue to defend the DOMA in courts since it violates the human rights of same sex couples. The public should be allowed to lend their voice to the debate through referendums. More citizens that are American are willing to allow gays and lesbians the freedom to enjoy all their constitutional rights. This is because most argue that it does not interfere with the enjoyment of their own constitutional rights.
The fear of gay rights has historically been fuelled by an attachment to traditional religious beliefs and social norms. A better understanding of the psychological and physical reasons of homosexuality allows people to become more tolerant (Yudell, 2012). It is now becoming clear that to be homosexual is as natural as being heterosexual. With this in mind, there is absolutely no reason in natural law why homosexual individuals should be denied the enjoyment of all their rights.
Chittom, L. (2011). Point: Same-Sex Marriage Undermines Society and Families.
Points Of View: Sam Sex Marriage [serial online]. June 2011:2. Available from:
Points of View Reference Center, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 7, 2012.
http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=26619736&site=pov-live
Driscoll, S. (2011). Counterpoint: Same-Sex Marriage is Both a Constitutional and
Human Right. Points Of View: Same Sex Marriage [serial online]. June 2011:3.
Lupia, A., Krupnikov, Y., Levine, A., Piston, S., & Von Hagen-Jamar, A. (2010). Why
state constitutions differ in their treatment of same-sex marriage. Journal of
Politics, 72(4): 1222-1235.
McCarthy, D. (2012). Right marriage fight. American Conservative, 11(4), 26.
Strasser, M. (2011). Same sex marriages and the right to privacy. Journal of Law &
Family Studies, 13(1):117-150.
Sullivan, A. (2012). The president of the United States shifted the mainstream in one
interview. Newsweek, 159(21): 22-25. Retrieved from
http://magazinedirectory.com/Newsweek.htm
Strasser, M. (2011). Same sex marriages and the right to privacy. Journal of Law &
Family Studies, 13(1):117-150
Sanders, S. (n.d). The constitutional right to (keep your) same sex marriage. Michigan
Law Review, 110(8):1421-1481.
Tara, B. (2012). “A Family with two moms, except in the eyes of the Law.” The New
York Times. 20 July 2012.
Tenety, E. (2012). “Some Mormons separate gay marriage rights from church rites.”
The Washington Post. 8 June 2012.
Yudell, M. (2012). “Why Gay Marriage is Healthy.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. 28 May
2012.
