Here Comes the Brides or Grooms

Greg Yaros
English 125-019
11 December 2012

          America: the land where dreams come true; the land of opportunity; the land of the free; the land of equal justice for all. The United States has always been the symbol of freedom and equality for the world. When America broke the chains of the oppressive British government and wrote the Declaration of Independence, its founders clearly stated that “all men were created equal” and that all men “are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

Picture of the Declaration of Independence¹

Today, however, there is still one group in the United States who does not enjoy all the civil rights granted to American citizens: homosexual people. Same-sex couples are allowed to marry in nine out of fifty states.² In the other forty-one states, homosexual people are denied their individual right to marry, denying gay and lesbian people the legal benefits of shared insurance and tax reduction.³ Some state laws even deny homosexual couples from adopting children.⁴ Homosexual people are not allowed to strengthen their relationships and further express their love for their partners when they are denied the ability to marry, when they are denied the pursuit of happiness.

Although there are other issues people debate over in regard to same-sex marriage, in the United States of America, where people’s rights are what define this free nation, the debate over legalizing same-sex marriage should be defined by the individual rights of every citizen.

Along with the passionate words that embody the spirit of the Declaration of Independence are the rights of Americans found in the United States’ Constitution. One of these rights is the “right to choose”, which is the respect all people must have for the choices of individuals.⁵ Besides civil rights, the “equality principal” states that all people are of equal worth.⁶ Same-sex marriage advocates use this right and this principal to justify same-sex marriage by arguing the point that marriage should be legal for both opposite and same-sex couples, since every person is of equal worth and has a right to have their choices respected. Due to this right and principal, it seems that justice in America demands that all citizens, no matter their sexual orientation, receive equal rights, including the right to marriage.

However, advocates opposing same-sex marriage focus on the rights of children who are parented by same-sex couples. Advocates against same-sex marriage argue that a child’s right to have a mother and father is abused when same-sex parents adopt a child because lacking a mother or a father negatively affects children.⁷ Yet, research has shown that there are “no major differences between children raised by homosexual parents and children raised by heterosexual parents in regard to self-esteem, adjustment in school, ability to form friendships, and other key factors”. Some research has even found that “on certain measures, the children of lesbian and gay parents do better than other children”.⁸ So is it fair to say same-sex parents are harmful to their children’s development? For instance, an opposite-sex couple could adopt a child and physically and mentally harm that child, while that same kid could have been adopted by a loving homosexual couple whom could have better cared for the child. Since it is inconclusive whether same-sex parenting is harmful for children or not, the decision to legalize same-sex marriage should not be formed on the basis of the children’s well-being and children’s right to have a mother and father.

Besides children’s rights, advocates against same-sex marriage argue the “Constitution protects only those fundamental rights recognized by traditional social structures over time (which would exclude same-sex marriage)”.⁹ Since the beginning of the United States, marriage was viewed as a union between a man and a woman. Due to this definition, those opposing same-sex marriages do not apply the rights of American citizens to marriage. By describing the way society has defined marriage in the past as a union between a man and a woman, these advocates believe this definition should be upheld because this is the way marriage has always been interpreted in America. 

Equal Rights for Homosexual Citizens¹¹

However, laws that have been upheld overtime are not always just. Dr. Martin Luther King Junior would disagree because King believed that time is not a factor of justice because African Americans were treated unjustly for hundreds of years.¹⁰ Just because African Americans had their civil rights abused for over three-hundred years did not justify their treatment. Similarly, just because homosexual couples have been denied the right to marry for an extended period of time does not make this law just.

Civil rights have been used in court cases to support the notion that marriage is a right of all citizens. Martha A. Ackelsberg and Mary Lyndon Shanley are two political theorists who highlight the fact that marriage can also be viewed as a right for American citizens as seen by the court case of Loving vs. Virginia.¹² This court case was about whether interracial couples were allowed to marry one another.¹³ The court “declared that marriage is a basic civil right and ‘one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men’”.¹⁴ If interracial couples have a right to marriage and thus the pursuit of happiness, why should homosexual couples be denied this right?

In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, African Americans were given the same, equal rights as every American citizen. However, just because African Americans received equal rights legally did not mean that all of society respected these rights. Equal rights for African Americans do not guarantee them fair treatment from all American citizens, but it does guarantee them legal recourse when they do not receive equality. Similarly, legalization of same-sex marriage would not end discrimination of homosexual people, but would administer them the equal rights defined in the constitution. Legalizing same-sex marriage would be a step toward accepting homosexuals as equals in America’s society just as the Civil Rights Act was a step towards accepting African Americans as equals in society.

With half of America supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage, the time is now for Americans to make a push to persuade politicians to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which specified that only marriage between a man and a woman count as a marriage for federal purposes, and to install a national law legalizing same-sex marriage.^15,16 Homosexuals should not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, just like African Americans should not be discriminated against because of their race. When a person breaks a law and is sent to jail, it is because they broke their contract with America, and have lost their freedom to their rights. Have homosexual people broken a law that should restrict their rights?

America is a country where every citizen is equal and anyone can do anything he or she is determined to do. Well, if America really supports people in their pursuit of their dreams, in their pursuit of equality, and in their pursuit of happiness, then justice demands that American laws do not prohibit one from marrying the person they love. People’s sexual orientation does not make them less deserving of receiving the rights of all citizens. Justice demands equality of rights in a country where “all men are created equal”.

______________________________________________________________________________

[1] CNN Opinion. "Declaration of Independence." Accessed December 10, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/04/opinion/declaration-of-independence/index.html.
[2] "Gay marriage law in Washington state takes effect as same-sex couples begin reciting wedding vows Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-marriage-law-washington-state-takes-effect-a." NY Daily News, December 9, 2012. Accessed December 10, 2012. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-marriage-law-washington-state-takes-effect-article-1.1216453?localLinksEnabled=false.
[3] International Encyclopedia of the Social Science. "Marriage, Same-Sex." Gale Virtual Reference Library. Accessed December 1, 2012. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3045301461&v=2.1&u=umuser&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w. 
[4] Ibid.
[5] Failinger, M A. "Sex and the Statehouse: The Law and the American Same-Sex Marriage Debate." MLibrary. Accessed December 2, 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6385.2009.00427.x.
[6] Ibid.
[7] van Gend, David, and Tim Wilson. "The Gay Marriage Debate." Review - Institute of Public Affairs. MLibrary. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1020406430.
[8] Murphy, T F. "Same-Sex Marriage: Not a Threat to Marriage or Children." Journal of Social Philospohy. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9833.2011.01534.x .
[9] Failinger, M A. "Sex and the Statehouse: The Law and the American Same-Sex Marriage Debate." MLibrary. Accessed December 2, 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6385.2009.00427.x.
[10] King, Martin Luther Jr. "Letter to Birmingham Jail." (August 1963): 1-6.
[11] The Advocate. "Gay Marriage and African Americans." http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2011/11/gay-marriage-and-african-americans.html.
[12] Ackelsberg, Martha A., and Mary Lyndon Shanley. Privacy, Publicity, and Power. 1996. https://ctools.umich.edu/access/content/group/127b7b8a-9c0b-4ce2-859a-9c949e578b31/Week%206/Ackelsberg_Shanley-Privacy%2C%20Publicity%2C%20and%20Power.pdf.
[13] Ibid., 225.
[14] Ibid., 225.
[15] Newport, Frank. "Half of Americans Support Legal Gay Marriage." Gallup Politics. Accessed December 8, 2012. http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/half-americans-support-legal-gay-marriage.aspx.
[16] International Encyclopedia of the Social Science. "Marriage, Same-Sex." Gale Virtual Reference Library. Accessed December 1, 2012. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3045301461&v=2.1&u=umuser&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w.