According to the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal” (Constitution 63), however, those words do not necessarily parlay themselves into equal rights for all Americans. A substantial portion of the population is restricted from participating in an important legal institution- marriage. Same-sex couples are excluded from entering this institution and are therefore also prevented from garnering its many legal benefits. By denying same-sex couples from this institution, the government is effectively telling them, “In our eyes, your relationship is not equivalent to those of married couples; you are not equal to them.” Some may say, the solution to this problem is clearly civil unions; it preserves marriage as between a man and a woman and gives the gays the rights they want. However, the proponents of civil unions do not always consider the many drawbacks. By allowing the states to exclude a certain percentage of the population from participating in an important legal institution, the United States government is enabling discrimination. Although the injustice done by the United States Government to homosexuals is the true immoral behavior concerning this issue, examinations of the arguments against gay marriage, as well as discussion of the benefits of homosexual inclusion in this institution will show that gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage and that this option should be afforded all people.

The first aspect of gay marriage is the denial of governmental marriage benefits. By garnering governmental privileges, marriage has transformed from a social and religious institution into a governmental institution. Due to the fact that same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples (Human Rights Campaign). These rights include, but are not limited to, tax benefits, estate planning, employment benefits and medical benefits (Human Rights Campaign). This exclusion of a certain section of the population from a governmental institution is not only immoral, but also unconstitutional. Following the “all men are created equal” precedence set by the Declaration of Independence, each citizen should have equal rights and protections. Therefore, it follows that all couples should also be considered equal before the law. It simply does not make sense for a heterosexual couple to be more privileged than a homosexual couple. Both couples are comprised of two United States citizens, if all people truly are equal, then why should any two people have more rights than any other two people? Furthermore, the denial of same-sex marriage violates the First Amendment. According to this amendment, people have the right to free speech, including symbolic speech (Constitution 35). Marriage is an act of expressing that one person fully commits himself or herself to the other, and vice versa. It is a symbolic form of speech and should be protected by the First Amendment. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is most definitely a violation of their rights as United States citizens.

Civil unions seem like the perfect solution to the marriage debate. Supposedly, they give gays many of the rights that accompany marriage and preserve the traditional idea of marriage. Upon closer examination, however, this compromise proves unsatisfactory to both sides. To those wishing to preserve the traditional idea of marriage: the idea that civil unions undermine marriage. As a viable alternative to marriage, civil unions are easier and less costly to obtain than their more traditional counterpart and are also easier to get out of. They eliminate the expectancy of a large, expensive wedding and the necessity of a complex, costly divorce if the relationship does not work out. Furthermore, they put forth the idea that there is more than one socially acceptable way for two people to live together in a committed, loving relationship. Underscoring this idea is the development that allows heterosexual, as well as homosexual, couples to utilize civil unions. Originally meant as a “marriage substitute” for those people who could not access marriage, in other words, same-sex couples, they have become available to straight couples as well due to rulings that “gays-only benefits are illegal” and requirements that “partner programs be nondiscriminatory” (Rauch 51). These decisions further eradicate the necessity of marriage and lend support to the marriage debate. If civil unions must be nondiscriminatory, why is marriage exempt from that decision? To those in support of civil unions, but not marriage: the basic premise of civil unions is unconstitutional. Besides these many negatives, civil unions are upholding a belief that the Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional. In essence, civil unions are a direct practice of the idea “separate but equal,” a philosophy already struck down by the Brown versus Board of Education case of 1954. With many negative effects and an unconstitutional premise, civil unions are clearly no solution to the marriage debate.

Of the reasons given by objectors to marriage equality perhaps the most prevalent is the idea that the Church and the Bible have condemned gay relationships. To this idea, one must first mention that, supposedly, the United States of America has a secular government with separation of church and state. However, when issues of this nature crop up, the idea of a truly secular government “flies out the window”. The first important point pertaining to this particular objection to gay marriage is the supposed condemnation of gay relationships in The Bible. However, upon closer examination, there are actually three stories of loving same-sex relationships presented, those of David, Ruth and Daniel (Robinson). The other stories discussing the supposed immorality of gay relations must be examined according to their context. The first story is that of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Although this passage is oft quoted as an argument against gays, it actually centers on the specific action of homosexual, and proposed heterosexual, rape. For instance, Genesis 19:5 states: “…and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may have relations with them.’” (Passage Lookup: Genesis 19). In this case, clearly the intention, and focus, of the mob is the rape of the visitors and therefore rape of all kinds, not homosexuality itself is the action being condemned. Another notable passage is that of the “Laws on Immoral Relations” found in Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination” (Passage Lookup: Leviticus 1. Although this statement seems quite clear, there has been much discussion as to its actual translation and interpretation. The most generally agreed upon interpretation acknowledges that the passage refers to anal sex between men, however theologians have not reached any consensus concerning the scope of the immoral actions (“Homosexuality in the Old Testament”). This passage revolves, not around homosexual relationships, but sex between men. In The Bible sexual relations between men and women were also mentioned and given rules so this mention of a homosexual act should merit no special importance.

Another common argument against gay marriage is that marriage is used only as a framework for raising children, or as Senator Rick Santorum puts it: “’Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society’” (Rauch 106). However, this argument has some intrinsic flaws. First, from this idea, it follows that if marriage’s sole purpose is procreation, then sterile men and women, along with those persons who are past their childbearing years should not be allowed to marry. Or in the case of persons already married when they reach old age, why are their marriages not dissolved after their children have become adults and the couple themselves is no longer capable of childbirth? For instance, imagine a letter that states: “’Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith: This is to inform you that, because your children are now legal adults and you are past childbearing age, your marriage is officially dissolved’” (109). The second major flaw with this argument is that even without the biological capability, gay couples, as well as infertile and older couples, can still be “open to children” through adoption. What this idea really comes down to is not a social, legal or moral definition of the purpose of marriage, but a sex-centered one (117).

The last major argument against same-sex marriage is that it undermines the institution of marriage. However, in actuality, “…preserving the ban on same-sex marriage will in fact weaken marriage, a little at first, but then more over time, by blurring its boundaries and eroding its prestige” (Rauch 86). Civil unions and partner benefits, as touched upon earlier, act as a “replacement” for marriage and, although meant originally for gay couples only, heterosexuals have also used these outlets in place of marriage. Allowing gay couples to marry would help prevent heterosexuals from “piggybacking on the movement” (90) and therefore help eradicate the acceptance of couples forming a life together without the structure of marriage. Furthermore, legalizing gay marriage would strengthen marriage by “renormalizing” it, so to speak (89). By including same-sex couples, it would reaffirm the idea that marriage is both the acceptable and preferable way for two people to build a life together. It would reinforce the idea that if a person wants the benefits of marriage, then they need to get married. All of the dangers, such as civil unions, cohabitation and unmarried parents, heterosexual dissenters say weaken marriage will only become more prevalent as homosexuals continue to live outside the fold of marriage and straight couples join them, leading to the eventual metaphorical “death” of marriage as an archaic and useless institution. This outcome, of course, is an extreme view of the situation that would take a long period of time to occur, but it is, nonetheless, possible.

The clear option that remains is the legalization of gay marriage, even if simply because none of the arguments against marriage carry any real weight when examined closely. Gay marriage makes sense, especially from a utilitarian standpoint. Allowing gay marriage benefits a larger number of people than disallowing it by granting equality, providing more stable homes for children and strengthening the institution of marriage. Furthermore, they perpetuate the idea of “separate but equal” and for gay people, “…civil unions and the like are a seat at the back of the bus, a badge of inferiority pinned on every same-sex union…” (Rauch 46). The institution of marriage is eroding and United States citizens are being denied basic rights every day, as a result, the only solution is the legalization of same-sex marriage to provide equality for gay couples.

__________________

http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php...ng_id=31423851

Very good post.

Two questions, because I have not done much research into this part, but I know the republicans on this board will point to this too, what about those 'statistics' (quote because I am betting they are garbage, or based on something entirely different, and being mangled into this situation (like no father and just a single parent bringing up the child and not two women)) that show children with no father are doomed.

Well, I forgot the second question, so will just say that there is a second solution, get rid of the term 'marriage' all together, and force everyone to just get civil unions, and that way everyone has full benefits, and it gets religion a little more out of the government.

__________________
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” -Einstein

So you rewrote US constitution, and the Bible in only 7 pages? I think that's a new record.

1. A "Secular" government does not exclude the existence of a God, or US law based on morals taken strait from the Bible. It only prevents the US Government from establishing a state religion.

2. As for your Scriptural (Bible) inaccuracies, they can also be easily refuted, if anyone is willing to research the subject.

__________________
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson my grow

Correcto Mundo, Senor.

Those who espouse Gay marriage are quick to point out the "evils" of a Nativity Scene on government property as being in violation of the separation of church and state clause (as if there is one) in the constitution, but think nothing of using the gun of government to force churches to provide Gay marriages. Go figure.

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

No one is trying to force churches to provide gay marriages. Marriage has transformed from originally being a state institution to becoming a religious one and now it is both.

And I'm not "rewriting" anything. I'll give you my sources and you can redo my "faulty" research if you so desire. Also the Constitution is a "living" document in that it needs to be evaluated and consulted in light of current circumstances since times change. If it wasn't constantly being reevaluated then there would still be slavery openly being practiced. Indeed a secular government does not exclude the existence of a god, however, nor does it necessarily include it. Besides, which god should be followed? Whose rules should become law? Including god in government is a recipe for inequality.

Where there is exclusion of even a few, no one can ever be truly equal.

__________________

http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php...ng_id=31423851

Just like you should not be called a racist because there happen to be some in the party you are in, you should not be quick to generalize everyone that is for gay marriage are anti nativity scene.

I personally could care less, I think it is more part of the tradition of christmas which has always been a happy holiday here in america (as long as your family is normal I guess and no molestation or fighting goes on).

But you point to a couple small points, why should they not be allowed to get married? Are the posters facts showing the double standard valid?


And why should the government stop churches that wish to provide marriage?

__________________
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” -Einstein

Marriage was completely out of the constitution because the church dealt with it. It is a union before god. But now gays are using the government to force churches to perform these disgusting marriages. America doesn't like gay people, so why don't you all move to Cuba, Venezuala, or Canada, I'm sure your socialist buddies wouldn't mind.

Atleast most gay people suffer from AIDS, so we don't have to deal with them for too long.

I understand if people don't want "gays" to have "marriage", but geez they need something. Call it whatever you need to, but let them have the same rights as married people. They should be able to have family health insurance and whatever else married people have together. I mean shit we are supposed to live in a free country.

Although they should have rights, the problem with this thinking is that it has already been proven unconstitutional (Search Brown v Board of Education) as separate, but equal can never be equal.

__________________

http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php...ng_id=31423851