Teas 1

Madison Teas Professor Mendonca English 1301 5 June 2011 Same-Sex Marriages Should Be Legal

The American society has become used to the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; however there always been minority groups restricted from these basic rights. According to Merriam- Webster Dictionary, marriage is defined as the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. Homosexual advocates would like to revise this traditional view of marriage to include same-sex partners; making the act of marriage a simple civil contract between two individual regardless of their sex. Same-sex marriage should be legalized because it demonstrates the freedom of choice that all people in the United States are entitled to. There has been a trend to-

wards the fight for marriage equality in the United States since the mid 19th century. Starting with the allowing of African Americans to marry which was permitted after the Civil War. The next movement was for the right for inter-racial marriage. In 1967, inter-racial marriage was legalized through out the country after the U.S Supreme Court ruling in the case Love V. Virginia. The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for gay couples began in the early 1970s but erupted in the 90s when the Hawaii Supreme Court, on May 5, 1993 ruled that the banning of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In result of this more than 40 states legislatures passed Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs), defining marriage between a man and a woman. In addition, on September 21, 1996 President Bill Clinton signed, a federal Defense of Mar-

Teas 2

riage Act that, defines marriage in federal law as a union between a man and a woman. The law also affirms that a states do not have to legally recognize gay marriages from another state (DOMA Watch). Massachusetts declared the Defense of Marriage Acts unconstitutional and was the first state to legalized gay marriages on May 17, 2004. Today, gay marriage is also legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia. In the twenty-first century same-sex marriage is one of the most controversial issues under debate. Marriage is not only a social but a legal institution and brings with it serious obligations. In addition to obligations marriage also brings significant legal benefits such as joint owner ship, insurance benefits, tax advantages, adoption, inheritance rights and much more. Advocates for same-sex marriages want to grant the same benefits and societal recognition that has been permitted to heterosexual couples. Proponents disagree with the Defense of Marriage Act and other legal limitations and argue prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional. On the other side of the issue, opponents support an amendment to define marriage as a heterosexual union. They believe by legalizing gay marriages it would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. There are numerous different religious groups in the United States, some supporting gay marriage and some oppose to it. Many religious groups are against same sex marriage because it is inconsistent with their beliefs, traditions and sacred text. If the United States redefines marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry, some religious groups believe that they will become at risk of having to disregard their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couple (Ron Prentice).

Among the opposers is the Catholic Church who announced support for the Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S Constitution in Washington during United States Conference of

Teas 3

Catholic Bishops. In the U.S Bishops Administrative Committee Statement, Promote, Preserve, Protect Marriage (Published September 9, 2003), the Administrative Committee defines marriage as committed, personal and permanent union between different sexes. They believe God is the creator of the natural institution of marriage. The Bishops assert, It is their duty as pastors and teachers to promote, preserve and protect marriage as it is willed by God, as generations have understood and lived it, and as it has served the common good of society. They argue same-sex unions cannot be given the status of marriage, because they do not demonstrate full human compatibility and because they can not naturally reproduce. Religious arguments are unacceptable gay activist argue. Legally speaking religious and civil marriage are completely separate therefore you cannot use religious beliefs to oppose state approval of same-sex union. In his article The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage, Andrew Sullivan (Times, June 22, 2003) supports the notion that same-sex marriage should not be a religious issue because America is a Secular State. Sullivan emphasizes also that not allowing samesex marriages is a violation of religious freedom. The First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... (Bill of Rights Transcript). The government should not make laws because certain religions do not approve.

One biological argument anti- gay activist argue is the purpose of marriage is procreation, Same-sex couples cannot procreate therefore marriage should not be granted. Reproduction of the human race is vital for the survival for our species and heterosexual couples are only one who can reproduce naturally (Dana Mack 2006). Same-sex relationships are biologically unable to create children (David E. Newton p. 47). Another procreation argument against gay marriages is biblical, asserting Gods main purpose in creating both a man and woman were for them to

Teas 4

be fruitful and multiply. We all know children can only be created between the natural intercourse of a man and a woman, thus proving Gods primary design for human beings (Same-sex Marriage: Real Issues/right Answers). Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at Family Research Council, also agrees with heterosexual couples are the only one who can procreate. He argues, Opposite-sex relationships ... Only ones assured of providing children with both a mother and a father. Affirming only opposite-sex relationships as marriage thus makes perfect sense (Gay Marriages ProCon). In Ted Olsons article The conservative case for gay marriage (Newsweek, January 7, 2010) Olson argues procreations argument cannot be taken seriously. He asserts if marriage purpose is for procreation the heterosexual couples who are infertile should not be allowed to marry. Opponents claim that procreations is vital for the continuation for our species but supporters argue we are in a state of overpopulation on earth. We do not need to be concern about reproducing, thus claiming opponents argument to be invalid (Scott Bistrupt 2009). Other supporters argue legalizing gay marriage would increase adoption rates for the children who do not have a home.

Opponents stress allowing opposite-sex relationships to marry will damage or destroy the institution of marriage and family itself. Marriage has already been weakened by the high divorce rate, the large number of non-marital births and the increase in cohabitation. Marriage is the foundation of our society and we must protect at any expense. Peter Winn, associate editor of CitizenLink, online news magazine of conservative evangelical group Focus Family, warns thatThey dont just want marriage. They want to destroy marriage- and the family-as we know it (Winn 2003). He feels allowing same-sex couples to marry will likely lead to the destruction of traditional marriage and the traditional family. The Coalition for Marriage also emphasizes

Teas 5

the negative impact it will have on society and agrees it will lead to the destruction of marriage(Coalition for Marriage and Family). Legalizing same-sex marriages proponents argue will not destroy the institution of marriage or harm family values. According the study Social Science Quarterly (published April 13, 2009) conducted by American University Laura Langbein and Mark A. Yost, Jr. found that allowing gay marriages have no negative effect on marriage, divorce and the precent of babies born to unmarried women.

Opponents ar-

gue same-sax marriage legal benefits would strain tax payers. People argue they should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong. In Adam Kolasinksi article, The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage he asserts homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating the society, so there is no reason to grant them these costly benefits of marriage ( Adam Kolasinksi 2006). He explains when a legalized marriage occurs they receive certain benefits that are expensive to both the state and other individuals. However, supporters argue state and local governments can actually benefit in a financial gain from same-sex marriages. Marriage licenses, higher income taxes and the decrease in costs for state benefits programs will increase proceeds from same-sex marriages (Kathryn Perry 2009). Marriage laws are constantly being tested by gay rights activists and gay couples wishing to be married. Legalizing same-sex marriages is the easiest way to ensure equal rights for all denying them is a violation of religious freedom. Allowing same-sex couples to register their partnership legally will let them obtain the social benefits heterosexual couples have had the luxury to. same-sex couples should not be excluded from the legal right to marry because they signify the same love and commitment in a marriage as a heterosexual couple. The public may not be ready for same gender marriage, but that does not give them the right to deny gay people the same rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples.

Teas 6

Teas 7

Works Cited Bidstrupt, Scott. "Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives." Veritas Et Ratio - Truth And Reason. 3 June 2009. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm>. "Bill of Rights Transcript." National Archives and Records Administration. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html>. "Coalition for Marriage and Family - Take Action." Coalition for Marriage and Family Home. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://www.coalitionformarriage.org/take-action.aspx>. "A Contentious Debate: Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S." Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/AContentious-Debate-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-the-US.aspx>. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Legal Resources and Information. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://www.domawatch.org/index.php>. Gay Marriage ProCon.org. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://gaymarriage.procon.org/>. Kolasinski, Adam. "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage." OrthodoxyToday.org | Home. 6 Nov. 2006. Web. 03 June 2011. <http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/KolasinskiGayMarriage.php>. Mack, Dana. "Now What for Marriage, After the Federal Ruling Against California's Proposition 8 That Sought to Ban Same-Sex Unions?" Business News & Financial News The Wall Street Journal - Wsj.com. 6 Aug. 2006. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411182715390988.html>. "Marriage." Def. 1a. Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 03 June 2011. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage>.

Teas 8

Newton, David E. "Problems, Controversies and Solutions." Same-sex Marriage: a Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2010. 31-81. Print. Olson, Ted. "The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage - Newsweek." Newsweek - National News, World News, Business, Health, Technology, Entertainment, and More - Newsweek. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/theconservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html>. Perry, Kathryn. "The Cost of Gay Marriage in Dollars and Cents -." The Christian Science Monitor. 27 May 2009. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/0527/p02s07-ussc.html>. Prentice, Ron. "Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 Ballot Arguments." Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 Home Page. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://www.protectmarriage.com/about/ballotarguments>. Same-sex Marriage: Real Issues/right Answers. Gainesville, FL: Bridge-Logos, 2004. 1-23. Print. Sullivan, Andrew. "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,460232,00.html>. "USCCB - (Office of Media Relations) - U.S. Catholic Bishops' Administrative Committee Calls for Protection of Marriage." United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-179.shtml>.

Teas 9

Winn, Pete. "The Effects of Homosexual Indoctrination on Kids." Interview by Dr. Bill Majer. Talk Wisdom. Focus on the Familys Citizenlink, 16 July 2003. Web. 2 June 2011. <http://www.talkwisdom.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1569>. Yost, Mark Jr., A., and Laura Langbein. "Same-Sex Marriage and Negative Externalities." Social Science Quarterly (2009). Print.