Interestingly enough, many advocates for gay marriage would have you believe that denying Americans the right to marry, regardless of sex, is unconstitutional. The truth is, however, that in no part of the United States Constitution is marriage ever mentioned (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.). The aphorism that we are all free people living in a free country is lightly acknowledged in the Constitution. Our claim to freedom actually comes from the Declaration of Independence, which technically holds no legal sway. Despite the legal connotations, or lack thereof, it is still an issue rooted deep in moral opinion and subjective bias. What the Constitution does address however, is the freedom of religion, speech, and the press, and to assemble and petition. Now in 1791, the year the Bill of Rights came into effect, these were some of the primary concerns of the American people. Over 200 years later, we have grown and evolved and new concerns have arisen. Of these, I believe that same-sex marriage is a current day issue synonymous with the controversies surrounding freedom in the past. Whether it is documented or not, it should be considered amongst the likenesses of any other conventional liberties we enjoy today.
If we are to deny one class of human beings from sharing the legal benefits of marriage, then why not deny all? Perhaps, then, we should revert to segregation and dispose of religious tolerance? The basic constituents of any rule applied to a community need to use an all or none approach. Without it, there is separatism, bias, and the implication that one party is undeserving of something allegedly prescribed to by the American government as acceptable for another party. The decision whether or not to allow same-sex marriage should not even be an issue of public choice, as is often the current status. It is a basic right that needs to be instituted at the core of our laws. The choice should lie in the hands of individuals who decide to participate in a legally sanctioned relationship in the same way that I would if I were to propose to and marry my girlfriend. It should be noted that heavy influence for the suppression of gay rights is often associated with religious organizations. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints reportedly donated $180,000.00 to the funding of Proposition 8, which withdrew same-sex couples’ right to marry in the state of California. Mormon families were also estimated to have donated nearly twenty-million dollars in personal contributions for Prop 8 (Garrison). This is an immensely powerful example of where influences lie in the matter.
Let us take a foray into the psychology of the situation at hand and see what the potential effects of it’s implementation would incur. I suppose the first question would revolve around what the moral significance would be. Is it wrong? Is it right? Would it be acceptable to the general public? These questions have no absolute answer. What may be right for one person, may not be for another. But my distaste for a particular religious organization or social establishment should not determine their ability to legally function or exist. The question of whether or not it would be acceptable to the general public is also an inquiry without a definite answer. Though I doubt it will be brought into law any time soon that we dissolve the rights of people to wear religious symbols in public or to hold hands with another person who practices an alternative lifestyle. Yet these are both examples of simple freedoms, both harmless in nature, just like gay marriage would be. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court “’failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason’ to deny gay persons the right to marry” (Linder). This is the kind of politically correct reasoning that should be taken on by the United States government. I presume that another question would be related to the effects or influence of openly gay couples on our youth. I am sure many parents would worry about how their children might interpret that. Or how about a gay couple raising a child? What effects would that have on that child? Ultimately it all winds down to the fact that we are a control based society, and we want to influence the things around us based on our own personal beliefs. Unfortunately for those who do live their lives that way, it is a way of life that will never come to fruition. Individuals are born with the innate ability to choose, to desire, to acquire unique affinities for unique things. We are all born with the proclivity to find our own way, despite outside influences. To top it all off, same-sex couples have existed and will continue to exist in increasing numbers in the future, whether we give them legal benefits or not. So the influence is inevitable and the ramifications are only as good or bad as we make them out to be.
On the plus side of things, there are many reasons why same-sex marriage would be beneficial to all parties, including those who are not homosexuals. Many gay families already have children, whether adopted or from a previous opposite sex relationship. To institute federal recognition for gay families would allow many of these children to take part in state aid and benefits otherwise not available. The assistance would be very substantial considering that, as of the 2000 census, there were over 160,000 same-sex households with one or more children (Rauch). In a humorous, albeit informational audio report by Brian Unger, he states that gay marriage would also stimulate our economy (Unger). First of all there would be licensing fees and secondly there would, of course, be the weddings themselves! Statistics say that the average cost spent on a wedding in the United States is about $20,000.00. With 2.3 million marriages in the U.S. every year (Sound Vision), and an estimated 10% of the population considered gay (Johnson), that would amount to about 4.6 billion dollars annually if 10% of those 2.3 million were gay marriages. That sounds like a good way to help pull us out of this recession to me! Another benefit, and arguably the most obvious, is the general contentedness that would arise in the 10% of our population that is gay. Happier people equal more successful people, thus potentially stimulating the economy further. Less money would be spent by the government on homosexual related laws bouncing back and forth, and as stated before, more money would be spent by gay consumers. It’s a win-win situation!
The consideration of legalizing same-sex marriage nationally is something that I believe to be inevitable. With the Constitution, we gained freedoms that were thought unattainable before then. During the Civil Rights movement, we conquered another injustice to humanity. It was an inescapable change. Human beings are bound by growth and harmony with one another. As interminably as the sun will rise and set, people will always seek to make things right based on what they believe to be true. Given the recorded history of the world, it is in our nature to shift into a new paradigm of beliefs with the changing of our culture. So for anyone who is straight and still opposes the idea, consider this: imagine a world where homosexuality was the norm. Imagine that you were strangely attracted to the opposite sex, as you are now. Then think about that right being taken away from you on the basis that you are expected to be a homosexual. It is a birthright for us to choose who and what we become, and it should be the moral responsibility of the governments of the world to support the individuals that give them the strength, the resources, and the population to govern. So yes, homosexuals should have the legal right to marry and enjoy the same benefits as other married couples!
Works Cited
Garrison, J. (n.d.). Mormon church reports spending $180,000 on Proposition 8. Retrieved 05 19, 2009, from Los Angeles Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/top-officials-w.html
Johnson, R. (n.d.). How Many Gay People Are There? Retrieved 05 19, 2009, from About.com: http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm
Linder, D. (n.d.). The Right to Marry. Retrieved 05 19, 2009, from UMKC School of Law: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm
Rauch, J. (n.d.). Family's Value: Why Gay Marriage Benefits Straight Kids. Retrieved 05 19, 2009, from Independant Gay Forum: http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26888.html
Unger, B. (n.d.). The Unger Report. Retrieved 05 19, 2009, from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90590325
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (n.d.). United States Constitution. Retrieved 05 19, 2009, from Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_constitution
writer, S. V. (n.d.). Statistics on Weddings in the United States. Retrieved 05 19, 2009, from Soundvision.com: http://www.soundvision.com/info/weddings/statistics.asp
0 Comments:
Post a Comment