Rowland 1

Saydee Rowland
VanderSlik
English 100
19 November 2014
Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage
Whether an individual is married or single, heterosexual or homosexual, legalizing samesex marriage is about everyone. Same-sex marriage has a short but heated history in the United
States alone. It first came to national attention in a 1993 Hawaii case, in which judges found that
the states constitution required a compelling reason not to extend to gays equal marriage rights.
The ruling prompted congress to push through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which
prevented homosexual couples from receiving benefits traditionally conferred by marriage. Since
then, states have scrambled to define their own stance of the issue, in some cases recognizing
civil unions or domestic partnerships. Currently, in every state there are decisions about laws
being made about same-sex marriage. Supporters and oppositionist alike cite religion, civil rights
and procreation as their defense, but on totally opposite sides. The views on legalizing same sex
marriage are effected by religious beliefs, the law itself and interpretation of civil rights. Both
arguments have great points, but sometimes feelings need to be put aside and everyone needs to
take a look at the big picture. If someone happy with their husband or wife, why cant they be
happy together?
If same-sex couples are allowed to marry what would this mean to the sanctity as
marriage between heterosexual couples? Would allowing same-sex marriage change the benefits
of marriage now afforded to heterosexual couples? It has been the belief that allowing same-sex
marriage could lead to other groups wanting to legalize marriage. From a religious standpoint,

Rowland 2
leaders argue that marriage has a specific purpose for society and same-sex marriage does not fit
into this mold. From a political standpoint, the debate about legalizing same-sex marriage and
enacting the Federal Marriage Amendment is losing steam. The public is losing interest, the
margins are becoming neutral for opposition and agreement on both sides of the argument and
unless its an election year, the politicians arent focusing on the issue. Allowing same-sex
couples to wed doesnt weaken the sanctity of marriage between heterosexuals, it wont lead to
an outbreak in other types of unions and the argument that marriage is for the purpose of
procreation isnt supported. Politicians are no longer about to use the subject as a vantage point.
As a society, legalizing same-sex marriage would acknowledge same-sex relationships as
relevant. Legalizing same-sex marriage recognizes the commitment of lesbian and gay couples
choice for monogamy, their willingness to commit to each other for life and yes, even their
desire to raise families as a couple.
Religious oppositionists of same-sex marriage believe that the reason for marriage is for
the purpose of procreation, repopulating the earth. Barret Pitner, a multimedia journalist for The
National Journal, recently wrote an article featuring David Blankenhorns views on same-sex
marriage. Blankenhorn has a strong opinion about same-sex marriage. He contends that same-sex
marriage and the damage it may create for the already troubled institution of marriage would add
to the problem. We are in a society that is seeing increasing levels of unwed childbearing, nonmarital cohabitation and family fragmentation among heterosexuals. From a procreation
standpoint, there would be no reason to allow same-sex marriage, as gay and lesbian couples
wouldnt be able to naturally have their own children. When expressing viewpoints of supporting
same sex marriage, its argued that a good morals start with family and an ideal family unit is
two parents; a father and a mother. On the other hand, supporters of legalizing same-sex

Rowland 3
marriage would argue that if the sole purpose of marriage were to procreate, and if a
heterosexual couple is unable to bear children, then they should also not be allowed to marry. Its
been pointed out that the legal institution of marriage is good for the children of heterosexual
parents, why should the children of lesbian and gay couples be punished by their government
simply because of their sexual orientation of their parents? Marriage is no more solely for the
purpose of procreating, than love is solely for heterosexuals.
Over the last fourteen years, voters have approved 32 out of 33 statewide bans on gay
marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage are still winning the legislative fight. The 1993
Hawaii case prompted to push through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented
homosexual couples from receiving benefits traditionally conferred by marriage. States have
scrambled to define their own stance on the issue. On the other side of the legal debate for the
same-sex, there are victories. In 2003, the Massachusetts victory, 13 states passed anti-gaymarriage initiatives on the subsequent election. According to Federal Judge, David Lawson, his
opinion about the benefits of same-sex couples stands strong:
With the gay-marriage debate still lingering in the courts, a federal judge in
Michigan Wednesday gave gay-rights advocates a boost in shooting down a state
law that bans public employers from offering benefits to same-sex couples. U.S.
District Judge David Lawson, who already spoke on this issue once, condemned
the law a second time on constitutional grounds only this time he stated his
objections in 34-page opinion. His reasoning was the same: The law unfairly
discriminates against the gay community, he wrote, and it's based on "an irrational
prejudice." "One need not look very far to learn that gays and lesbians are a
disfavored group," Lawson wrote in his opinion. The 2011 law that bans public
employees from getting benefits is one more example of "animus" against the gay
community, he wrote. (Baldas, 2014)
Tom Head, author of numerous books, including the Historical Dictionary of American
Civil Liberties and the ACLU, explains that the Federal Marriage Amendment states: Marriage

Rowland 4
in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this
Constitution, nor the constitution of any other state, shall be construed to require that marriage or
the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and
woman. (Head, 2013.) Ed White, of The Daily News, insists that banning same-sex marriage
does not violate the 14th constitutional amendment of equal protection, since there is no
fundamental right to same-sex marriage. He argues that even if same-sex marriage became a
constitutional right, it does not mean that it would become a fundamental right. He implies that is
the concern is that the right to marry is a civil right and marriage is for the purpose of procreation
and this is fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. Than by that definition
banning same-sex marriage does not violate fundamental or civil rights. The gay movement,
whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation
movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing peoples view of homosexuality, (TFP
Student Action, 2013.) Supporters of same-sex marriage state that the argument that same-sex
couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are
appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. Civil rights
protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on
what the material dispute in law is all about.
The opposition against same-sex marriage uses a few basic key points in their argument,
religion, politics and civil rights. From their viewpoint they can see how these things support
their stance. Religiously, marriage is for procreation; a union between one man and one women.
Politically, in congress the support is still strong against legalizing same-sex marriage with a
majority of the states still having bans on same-sex marriage. When looking at civil rights,
oppositionists do find marriage a fundamental or civil right. And when the advocates support

Rowland 5
same-sex marriage, the reasons are the same. They believe that a religious union is not exclusive
to heterosexual couples. Same-sex supporters are gaining ground politically with the progress
they are making in states that have adopted same-sex union laws. And from the viewpoint of the
supporters of same-sex marriage, the civil right that refers to the pursuit of happiness is exactly
what they are asking for.

Rowland 6

Works Cited
Pitner, B.H. (2012, June 23). Same-sex Marriage Opponent Reverses Stance. National
Jorunal.com. Web.6 Mar. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nationaljournal.com TFP Action
(n.d.) 10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed Retrieved
from http://tfpstudentaction.org
Head, T. (2012, June 1) Four Reasons to Support Gay Marriage and Oppose the Federal
Marriage Amendment. About.com.civilliberties.civilliberties.web.21.feb.2013
TIME (2008, May 22) A Brief History of Gay Marriage Retrieved from http://time.com Silken,
J.W. (n.d.). Public Justice Report. Second Quarter Retrieved from http://www.cpjustic.org
White, E. (2013, March 7). Judge taking a look at Michigans gay marriage ban. The Daily News,
pg 1-2.
Baldas, Tresa. (30 Nov. 2014). Michigan ban on same-sex couple benefits rejected. Detroit Free
Press, 2014. Web. http://www.freep.com