Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

admin — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:18:45 +0000

Satisfied marriage has been blamed for everything from the terrorist attacks of September 11^th to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. James Dobson even has gone so far as to declare that “gay marriage will destroy this nation and western civilization as we know it.” Clearly the debate over gay marriage has become a heated one in which personal opinions and biases often obfuscate the facts and observations already laid in front of us by science and experimental research. In the end, the question of gay marriage should be looked at as any other government policy, rather than through the partisan, often religious lens that is currently employed.

The arguments against gay marriage can be easily divided into religious and nonreligious in nature. First, I will address the nonreligious reasons that detractors of pleased marriage provide.

Opponents of gay marriage claim that cheerful marriage will raze American families. However, gay marriage can ameliorate the current location of the American family. According to the 2000 census, 33% of lesbian couples and 22% of male blissful couples had adopted children under 18. This is crucial as currently the United States is facing a crisis in the form of millions of unadopted children who must languish in the foster care system until they reach the age of 18. In fact, it is estimated that adoptions by gay couples save the country $87-$130 million annually (Williams 2000). Additionally, some opponents of gay marriage worry that gay couples just do not do as good of parents as straight couples, and that in fact a child cannot grow up both physically and emotionally healthy in a household headed by a homosexual couple. However, a scientific consensus has coalesced around the opinion that homosexual couples are no better or worse as parents than heterosexual couples. Underscoring this fact is the list of “organizations that have officially supported adoption by same-sex couples: the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians” (“GLBT Parenting” 2007). In fact, “the American Psychological Association states in its Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children (adopted July 2004):

There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children”; and “research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.” (“GLBT Parenting” 2007).

Opponents argue that same-sex marriage will somehow harm the sanctity of marriage as an institution. Yet, the U.S. Census Bureau confirmed in 2002 that 50% of marriages end in divorce. Also, upon inspection of divorce rates by set, it is actually Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is allowed, that has the lowest divorce rate in the entire nation at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 marriages. Finally, any country that legitimately believes that recognizing the sanctity of a 24 hour marriage by an intoxicated Britney Spears over the marriage of two consensual adults who have been together for years and truly love each other, seems to be in need of reexamining its priorities.

Another familiar frame from anti-gay marriage activists is the argument that gay marriages can and will destroy the society that tolerates them. However, this argument is strikingly familiar to the language archaic to describe the dangers of legalizing interracial marriage less than fifty years ago. Furthermore, the claim of societal destruction is very clearly struck down by the fact that currently “South Africa, Belgium, Canada, Spain, and the Netherlands allow gay marriage” (“Civil Union” 2007). Civil unions, in which homosexuals are given many of the factual rights afforded to married couples, have been embraced by 16 countries, including 15 European countries and New Zealand (“Civil Union” 2007). Domestically, “Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, California, and New Hampshire (from 1 January 2008) have created honest unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law to same-sex couples. Maine, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Oregon (from 1 January 2008) and Washington have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions” (“Same-Sex Marriage in the United States” 2007). The bottom line is that 20% of states in America (plus Washington D.C.) have legalized some form of recognition for same-sex couples.

Finally, the primary concern vocalized toward gay marriages is that they are strictly forbidden in religious texts. The answer to this belief is twofold. First, to be completely straightforward, how gay marriage and homosexuality are viewed in religious books has absolutely no relevance whatsoever on the legality of excluding citizens from the rights enshrined in the constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly calls for equal protection under the law for all United States citizens. The same amendment that was used by the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision Loving v. Virginia, in which the court decreed the unconstitutionality of states to ban interracial marriages applies equally well for same-sex marriages. It was Thomas Jefferson who first articulated the opinion of a wall that separates church and status. This is one of the core beliefs of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution itself. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court throughout the history of the United States to prohibit “a religious understanding with no identifiable secular purpose” (“Establishment Clause of the First Amendment 2008″). An important imprint to make as well is that sanctioning same-sex marriage would in no way force places of love to bless such unions. Couples are able to wed in city halls and other governmental buildings, without ever having to enter a church, synagogue, or mosque.

A second method to counter the religious arguments is to directly examine the Bible (as this is the most commonly cited religious text by opponents of same-sex marriage). The most damning condemnation of homosexual relations in the Bible comes from Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” While it would be hard to argue against this kind of direct forbiddance, an alternative path can be taken. While God does indeed condemn homosexual relations as an abomination, this very same passage continues to list a plethora of other actions and items which are also abominations:

· Leviticus 11:11 condemns eating shellfish

· Leviticus 17:12 forbids eating raw meat

· Leviticus 11:7-8 condemns eating swine or touching their carcasses

· Leviticus 19:28 forbids the use of markings on your body (such as tattoos)

· Leviticus 19:19 states “thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.”

As an illustration, lets take a truly American national event, the Super Bowl. Picture a group of friends gathering around the television watching their favorite teams throw around the pigskin as they eat their jumbo shrimp while wearing their polyester clothing. It is likely that at least a few of the spectators have tattoos. For those who do not like shrimp, there could just as easily be alternative food options including sushi or corn on the cob. In this little example of an all-American event these gatherers have committed all of the listed abominations, which are equally on par with homosexual relations in the eyes of God. In fact, the government not only does not intervene and forbid such abominations, they routinely give out billions of dollars of our own tax money to further commit such abominations. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture has given an average of $16 billion per year over the period of 1996-2002 as subsidies to American farmers (“Agricultural Subsidy” 2008). Yet these same American farmers, in fact farmers throughout the globe, now routinely rotate their crops in a system that “mingles seeds.” Also, after the Green Revolution of the previous century, most American crops are now hybrids of multiple strains of a crop in order to provide the highest yield seeds. This is the very definition of “mingled seed,” yet few Americans would suggest upending our entire agricultural base by ending all use of such crops. The inquire of then becomes, why are all of these other abominations regarded as quaint, outdated, and then ignored, while homosexuality is not? God gave no special distinction or punishment for homosexuality to effect it as somehow worse than any of the other abominations and sins listed throughout the Bible. It seems to be a very arbitrary (at best) delineation to make, as homosexuality is listed in the very same passage as all of the other abominations.

Personal feelings or religious beliefs should not get in the way of doing what is legally and morally right. We have all been raised to understand that discrimination and prejudice are wrong. If you would not disallow a person from marrying because they were handicapped, mentally challenged, black, short, tall, or overweight, then why discriminate against homosexuals?

Works Cited

“Agricultural subsidy.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 5 Jan 2008, 17:02 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2 Feb 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Agricultural_subsidy&oldid=182329161>.

“Civil Union.” Wikipedia. 2007. .

D’Antonio, William. “Walking the Walk on Family Values.” The Boston Globe. 2004. < http://boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/>.

“Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 31 Dec 2007, 01:05 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2 Feb 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment&oldid=181096294>.

“LGBT Parenting.” Wikipedia. 2007. .

“Same-Sex Marriage in the United States.” Wikipedia. 2007. .

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1952.

Related Blogs

Share and Enjoy:

California Public Record Search » Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Related Blogs