RichardYee.net
The Official Site
Banning Same-Sex Marriage: An Attack on the American Institution
In its relatively short lifetime, the United States of America has faced numerous issues concerning discrimination and equality, conquering differences in race, religion, and gender. Today, the American people confront yet another field of controversy: sexual orientation. Homosexuality, once considered an unspeakable topic, has gradually found its way into television, cinema, and modern society and presently struggles to find its place in the nation’s legal system. Massachusetts is currently the only state that recognizes the marriage of homosexuals; other states prohibit gay marriage or permit only civil unions. A proposed Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage nationwide is now the subject of heated debate. Advocates are concerned about the protection of tradition and society, but from a legal and ethical standpoint, the proposition is erroneous and unjust. Banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, its reasons are faulty and unjustifiable, and its defeat is necessary to uphold American values.
Proponents of the ban, including President George W. Bush, argue that gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage. They claim that marriage is strictly a religious tradition intended to be between a man and a woman, and allowing homosexuals to take part in it would destroy the sacred institution and eventually society as a whole. Not only is this position a drastic exaggeration, it conflicts with the separation of church and state described in the federal Constitution, which ensures the division of religion and government. While marriage may have originated in religion, it has since become a social custom and a basic human right. As Allen Snyder notes, a provision limiting marriage to a group of people on the sole basis of religion would violate the First Amendment (1). Moreover, the notion that gay marriage would lead to the breakdown of marriage and society is a foolish overstatement. Massachusetts and other parts of the world have shown no signs of total destruction since legalizing same-sex marriage. Extending the act of marriage to homosexuals does not prevent heterosexuals from marrying, nor does it harm the structure of society. Banning it is unconstitutional, and the dangers of allowing it are irrational.
Supporters of the amendment also argue that the main purpose of marriage is to encourage procreation, something homosexuals are incapable of. Joanna Grossman counters that, under this definition, opposite-sex couples who are infertile or choose not to have children should not engage in marriage as well (3). Others claim that the best setting for raising children is in a family with opposite-sex parents. However, as Grossman rebuts, many conventional families consist of neglectful or incompetent parents, and no evidence indicates that a gay couple would be better or worse parents than a straight couple (3). In fact, Andrew Sullivan describes same-sex marriage as “pro-family, uniting those gay family members with their siblings and parents in the unifying ritual of civil marriage” (78). It does not endanger traditional marriage, but rather strengthens it by expanding the institution to encompass additional members. According to Sullivan, homosexuals do not intend to steal or demolish marriage; they only desire to participate in a celebrated practice that calls for “fidelity, responsibility and commitment” (78). Those who suggest gays do not satisfy the qualifications for marriage have apparently forgotten about love, the true reason marriage exists.
Yet the ban’s greatest problem is not its unconstitutionality or unwarranted motives, but rather its disregard for what America stands for. This nation has strived to promote the equality of opportunity and personal liberty of all, regardless of sex, race, or creed; sexual orientation, a major component of one’s individuality, should be no different. It would be un-American to restrict the rights of a particular group of people merely because of who they are. If an act does not harm or negatively affect anyone in any way, then no legitimate reason exists to prohibit it. Hence, forbidding same-sex marriage is a blatant form of discrimination, overlooking widely shared American values. Homosexuals are American citizens and deserve to be treated like American citizens. They have the right to pursue happiness even if the matter in which they do so differs from the social norm. Instead of devising ways to divide America through its differences, a true patriot would unite the nation by embracing its differences. One does not need to agree with or accept homosexuality in order to respect it. By attacking same-sex marriage, one is disrespecting homosexuality as a whole, and, in a way, disrespecting America.
Those who oppose gay marriage have made passionate cases from various perspectives, but they all fail under the weight of reason. Limiting marriage for the purpose of protecting its sanctity is a violation of the federal Constitution, and the supposed intentions and objectives of marriage favoring heterosexuals are close-minded and inconsistent. Giving homosexuals the right to marry poses no threat to heterosexual marriage, nor does it jeopardize the fabric of society. Not only does same-sex marriage benefit society by spreading the joy and obligations of marriage, it is necessary to preserve the fundamental values and beliefs of the nation. As seen in the past, original intentions cease to matter in a continually changing world. What cannot change, however, are the basic principles that make up the foundation of society, which is exactly what this Constitutional ban will do. What is at stake here is not the institution of marriage, but the institution of America. Denying citizens the right to pursue happiness may not lead to the downfall of civilization, but it would certainly halt centuries of social progress.
Works Cited
Grossman, Joanna. "Are Bans on Same-Sex Marriage Constitutional?" FindLaw’s Writ 20 Nov. 2003. 18 Jan. 2005 .
Snyder, Allen. "Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violates Church-State Separation." OpEdNews 14 Mar. 2004. 18 Jan. 2005 .
Sullivan, Andrew. "If at First You Don’t Succeed…." Time 26 July 2004: 78.