Business
Thesis Statement: Same sex couples have the ability to long, lasting and loving intimate relationships just like ordinary couples so they should be given then right to marry since it will not cause any harm to the rest of the community.
The first argument is that gay marriages promote equality among same-sex couples. To deny gay marriages will violate the equal protection and due process clause of the Constitution. Marriage is a civil right that should be granted to gay and lesbian couples. Hence, restricting the benefits, protection and obligation of civil marriage only to opposite-sex couples will violate the individual liberty and equality under the law. Thus, to extend the civil marriage to same sex couples will reinforce the importance of marriage to individuals and communities (Cahill 4). The present marriage laws aim to treat all persons equally. Therefore, any unmarried male and unmarried female are allowed to marry each other, despite of their sexual orientation. This is a clear showing that the legislation is taking a neutral stand with respect to sexual orientation. The same right should be given to same sex couples because the Constitution promotes equality by treating individuals in similar manner (Vogt, “Rebuttals to arguments for same-sex marriage”).
The second argument is that one of the reasons why gay marriages are disallowed is because same-sex couples do not have the ability to reproduce. However, there are also some infertile couples who are still allowed under the law to marry despite their condition. Hence, the requirement to reproduce and bear children should not be held against gay couples to deny them of marriage because there are some infertile couples who are granted the right to get married. To impose upon opposite-sex couples to undergo mandatory fertility tests prior to marriage will violate their rights under the Constitution because it invades the right to privacy (Vogt, “Rebuttals to arguments for same-sex marriage”). In addition, there might be instances when fertility tests can be misdiagnosed and wrongly denied marriage based on this scenario. Hence, in the same manner, gay couples should not be denied of the right to marry since this right is to be given equally to all regardless of gender, such as race, age or religion. Marriage should not entirely focus on the concept of procreation because it causes a restriction to allow only one man and one woman to marry. This rationale only deals with a relationship that has the capacity to produce children. However, for some infertile couples, marriage can be defined as a loving, romantic union of two committed adults who want to spend the rest of their lives together. This is the same concept espoused by same-sex marriages.
The third argument is that same-sex parents have the ability to raise children just as opposite-sex parents. This was argued in 2005 by the American Psychological Association (APA) which revealed that there has been no proof presented in a single study that showed that those children who were raised by gay or lesbian are placed at a disadvantaged situation when compared to children who were born and raised by heterosexual parents (Vogt, “Rebuttals to arguments for same-sex marriage”). Hence, it is a clear indication that same-sex couples have the ability to provide the love, care and attention given by opposite-sex parents.
The fourth argument is that extending civil marriages to same sex couples will reinforce the importance of marriage to individuals and the community. Thus, the argument that giving the same-sex couples the right to marry will destroy the dignity or validity of heterosexual marriage is untenable. The freedom of choice and the right to privacy among individuals should be respected in making intimate decisions. This includes the treatment of marriage as a civil right and civil unions (Mello 10).
The fifth argument is that denying gay couple to marry creates a scenario where member from the gay and lesbian community are treated as second class citizens. The Supreme Court decision in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Health rendered by the court in 2003, stating that the right to marry is a personal choice. The Massachusetts constitution has affirmed that every person’s dignity should be recognized and that the marriage ban on gay couples cause a deep and scarring hardship on same-sex couples for no logical or rational reason (Mello 8).
Marriage is an exclusive commitment of two people who vowed to nurture, love and render mutual support to each other in order to bring stability to the community (Mello 8). This definition must also be applied to gay couples who choose to build their own family, adopt children and to provide the same love, care, attention and affection that heterosexual couples give to their children. In fact, there are instances when heterosexual couples or opposite-sex couples are remiss of their duties of rearing and nurturing their children with the love and guidance that they need. Many responsible gay couples are more capable of rearing and raising children in the best possible way they can.
Finally, one identified hindrance of gay marriages is due to religious hatred. Majority of the members from the religious community, such as the Roman Catholics have disagreed in allowing same-sex marriage based purely on religious grounds (Vogt, “Rebuttals to arguments for same-sex marriage”). There are Catholic groups and agencies even denied gay couples to adopt children on the basis of religious dogma, the Bible, and divine revelation. In fact, there are also other religious communities who supported the prohibition of gay marriages on the grounds of religious authority that they want to believe in. However, there is no need to analyze and understand religious teachings to be able to have a full grasp of the purpose of marriage and the benefits it will bring for the common good.
In closing, same sex couples have the ability to long, lasting and loving intimate relationships just like ordinary couples so they should be given then right to marry since it will not cause any harm to the rest of the community. The Constitution promotes the dignity and equality of every person. Hence, as stated in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Health, the State does not have the right to deny gay couples to marry for no sufficient logical reason. Every person’s right to marry cannot be considered as a mere privilege granted by the State, but is considered as a basic and essential right that demands protection from undue interference by the state. Therefore, there is no rational basis to deny same-sex couples of marriage based on religious grounds and procreation issues since there is a need to respect the Constitutional mandate of equal protection clause and due process clause.
Works Cited:
Cahill, Sean Robert. Same Sex Marriage in The United States: Focus On The Facts. Maryland:
Lexington Books, 2004. Print.
Goodridge v. Department of Health 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)
Hertz, Frederick C. and Emily Doskow. Making It Legal: A Guide to Same-Sex Marriage,
Domestic Partnerships & Civil Unions, 2009. California: NOLO.
Mello, Michael. Legalizing Gay Marriage: Vermont and the National Debate. Philadelphia:
Temple University, 2004. Print.
Nagle, Jeanne. Same-Sex Marriage. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2010. Print.
Vogt, Brandon. Rebuttals to arguments for same-sex marriage. Our Sunday Visitor.com. April 1,
2013. Web. May 2, 2013.
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage.aspx..
