Gay marriage is not just a hot topic in America, but in my family. The side that believes in equality is often silent against those who do not. We love each other and so we often choose not to discuss things that cause friction to "keep the peace." When I was given an assignment to write about an ethical and social issue, I debated whether or not to write about this. It has been on my list of possible topics in nearly every class, so I decided it was time to voice my own opinion. After all, the other side thinks nothing of voicing their own. For me, what it comes down to is equality. I hope that you enjoy my paper, or that it at least makes you think.
There is much controversy surrounding the issue of Gay Marriage and giving same-sex couples equal rights under the law. The strongest argument against the right to marriage is that marriage is perceived as a religious institution, but is this argument even valid in a country that demands separation between church and state, and whose citizens do not want the government to have authority over their personal lives? Gay couples are treated as second class citizens, and are not granted the same rights under the law as “traditional” couples are. If we are to have “justice for all”, as our pledge of allegiance states, then it is time for laws and attitudes regarding gay marriage to change. Two consenting adults should be allowed to marry each other, regardless of sexual orientation, and to make laws to the contrary is in violation of their right to equal and fair treatment (Legal Information Institute, 2010).
Marriage allows medical privileges that are not available to same sex couples. Hospitals in states that do not have same sex marriage do not recognize domestic partnerships nor recognize them as immediate family, therefore, the partner does not have rights over medical treatment, and in some cases, is not even allowed to visit the hospitalized partner (Polikoff, 2008). In Polikoff’s (2008) book, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage, she writes about several couples who have experienced this traumatic separation. Same sex couple Bill and Robert were registered in San Francisco as domestic partners, but when Bill was hospitalized in Maryland while on vacation, Robert was forbidden to see him, even though Robert had power of attorney over Bill’s medical care. Against his wishes, the hospital placed a breathing tube in Bill’s lungs, and he died two days later (Polikoff, p.159).
This separation extends to shared children who are hospitalized. The non-biological parent may not be allowed access to the sick child, or to make medical decisions regarding the child’s care. A domestic partnership or civil union does not provide the same legal rights as marriage does. Same sex couple Julie and Hilary had a baby through artificial insemination (Polikoff, 2008). When Julie had a difficult labor and complicated delivery that resulted in the baby going to the neonatal intensive care unit, Hilary was not allowed to visit the baby because she was not a parent or immediate family (Polikoff, p. 159). A person should not be cut off from their loved one because the law does not allow them to marry.
What happens when a partner dies? If they were married, then assets and benefits would go to the spouse. But what about a couple who is not allowed to marry, but has been together for thirty-five years? Same sex couples do not have a right to Social Security when their higher earning partner dies, no matter how long they have been together (Polikoff, 2008). The social security system does not provide the same benefits to same sex partners as it does to married couples. Even ex-wives of men who die receive social security if they were married to the deceased for more than ten years before the marriage dissolved, yet a same sex couple who has spent a lifetime together is left destitute if the wage earner dies (Polikoff).
When there is a wrongful death, either by accident or murder, only the surviving spouse can file a wrongful death claim against the accused (Polikoff, 2008). When Diane Whipple of New York was mauled to death by her neighbor’s dog, her partner of seven years, Susan Smith, was not at first going to file a wrongful death claim against the neighbor because the law did not allow her to do so (Polikoff, p.194). A judge stepped in and ruled that the law was unconstitutional because Sharon and Diane were not permitted to marry (Polikoff). A person guilty of taking someone’s life, either by accident or on purpose, should not be allowed to sidestep financial responsibility because the victim was in a same sex relationship.
Marriage provides parental and survivors’ rights that civil unions do not. Some states have created what is called a “second-parent adoption”, which is a legal adoption that does not require the biological parent to give up their parental rights (Mohr, 2005, p. 60). This allows same sex partners to both be considered legal guardians. In states that do not have this policy, if a couple separates after raising a child (or children) together after thirteen years, the non-biological parent loses all rights to the child (Mohr). When a couple separates, the biological parent gets the children, no matter who was staying at home with them. The couples also do not have a right to child support. The non-biological parent can simply walk away (Polikoff, 2008).
If a relationship is divided by a wage earner and a homemaker, and the wage earner dies, the children being raised only receives survivor’s death benefits if they are biologically related (or adopted under the second parent adoption statute) to the wage earner (Polikoff, 2008). Even if that state does not recognize domestic partnerships, they do have to abide by the second-parent adoption. This is why it is important to have second-parent adoptions and same-sex marriage nationwide. That way, if a family moves to a different state after the marriage takes place, they cannot be denied benefits simply because the new state does not recognize their marriage as legal.
Many people argue that marriage is a religious institution and feel threatened by the idea of giving same-sex couples the same privileges that marriage offers. In 2004, a rally titled, “Mayday for Marriage” was held in Washington D.C., where over 200,000 people came together to defend their definition of marriage, which is one man and one woman (Rimmerman & Wilcox, 2007). The large group consisted of Jews, Christians of all denomination, and Catholics (Rimmerman & Wilcox). Even though these religious groups have different views on many government policies, they agree on the subject of gay marriage: it should be illegal. They cite the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which officially defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (Rimmerman & Wilcox). Before then, some municipal offices approved same sex marriage licenses, and in Hawaii, one couple sued the state when they were not granted a marriage license in 1990 (Rimmerman and Wilcox). The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in the couple’s favor. The DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) however, permits states that do not allow same sex marriage to ignore a legal marriage conducted in a different state, which means that outside Hawaii, their marriage is not recognized (Rimmerman and Wilcox).
Supporters of the DOMA believe that allowing homosexuals to marry threatens their own marriage somehow (Montgomery, 2008). The reality is that the biggest threat to marriage is divorce, and currently fifty percent of marriages (opposite sex marriage) end in divorce. Some are afraid that churches will be required to perform same sex marriage, however, because if the first amendment to the constitution, no government can force a church to do so (Montgomery). If we claim that marriage is a religious institution then why do we allow people of all faiths to marry, including atheists? If believing in God and being religious was a requirement for marriage, then many people would not qualify.
Some believe that homosexuality is a disease, and therefore should be treated as such. Even the Pentagon once had homosexuality listed as a mental disorder and in 1996 reclassified it as a “condition” (Associated Press, 2006). In an article written for the Christian Research Institute, Joseph Gudel (n.d.) claims that the American Psychological Association’s 1973 decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was made in part due to “militant homosexual groups” rallying outside the APA’s national meeting, and calls the decision, “the medical hoax of the century” (Gudel). The APA counters saying that homosexuality has no correlation with psychopathology (APA, 2008). Furthermore, the APA goes on to state that the prejudice and violence displayed towards gay people has long term mental affects (APA).
Presidential candidate Rick Perry compares homosexuality to alcoholism, and has committed to reverse legislation supporting gay rights, which includes signing an amendment that would override laws in states that currently allow gay marriage (Stein, 2011). Although the republicans consistently argue for less federal government involvement, and more individual state rights, Perry intends to take away a state’s right to pass laws on same-sex marriage. He is not alone in his beliefs; six of the eleven 2012 Presidential candidates who have taken a stance on gay marriage are against it, and several of those plans to take steps to overturn new legislation that allows gays to serve openly in the military, and to make current same sex marriages illegal (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org). Candidate Mitt Romney claims that allowing same sex marriage will destroy the education system (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org). Candidate Newt Gingrich does not even want to allow gay to adopt children (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org). All of the candidates cite the Bible as their source when arguing against homosexuality, however, making a sweeping decision based on religious views is in direct violation of the constitution, which states that no government can tell us which religion to practice.
The topic of same sex marriage not only divides the candidates, but it also divides those who consider themselves to be practicing Christians. The view most often expressed is one against same sex marriage, however, there are Christians-even some churches-that support it. The United Church of Christ, a national denomination with over 1.3 million members, passed a resolution in 2005 which stated that everyone, regardless of gender, deserved equal rights to marriage (Dewan, 2005). The church supports marriage equality because, it says, that to do otherwise is discrimination and violates a couple’s civil rights (Dewan). In the same article which is titled “United Church of Christ Backs Same-Sex Marriage”, Reverend Thomas (2005), the president of the denomination, says that "We will not run from one another, because if we run from one another we run from Christ" (para. 14).
Homosexuals are currently being treated in a way similar to how mixed race couples were treated in the past. Until 1948, thirty states had laws that banned marriage between interracial couples (Egelko, 2008). There was a belief that marriage between a mixed-couple was inferior to that of a white couple. We need to recognize that love is a basic human right, and that everyone should be treated with dignity. Keeping a same sex-couple from marrying is telling them that they are “less than” and that they have no value.
While marriage can be viewed as a religious covenant by many couples, it is important to remember that not everyone practices Christianity. We either need to change the meaning of marriage, or the importance of the legal implications behind marriage. Our laws state that the government cannot impose its religious beliefs upon its citizens. Race, religion, and sexual orientation should not be a factor when it comes to marriage, and it is time to get rid of antiquated laws, and grant the human right to love, marry, and live your life with whom you wish.
References
American Psychological Association (2008). Sexual orientation and homosexuality, American Psychology Help Center, retrieved Oct. 23, 2011 from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
Associated Press, (2006, November). Pentagon Changes Listing of Homosexuality as Mental Illness, Fox News, Retrieved Oct. 22, 2011 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230102,00.html
Dewan, S., (2005, July). United church of Christ backs same sex marriage, The New York Times, Retreived Oct. 23, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/national/05church.html
Egelko, B., (2008, March). California Supreme Court takes up same sex marriage, The San Francisco Chronicle, Retrieved Oct. 2 2011 from http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/04/7463
Gudel, J., (n.d). Is homosexuality an illness? Christian Research Journal, Retrieved Oct. 23, 2011 from http://www.equip.org/articles/is-homosexuality-an-illness-
Legal Information Institute, (2010). Civil rights, Retrieved Oct. 22, 2011 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Civil_rights
Mohr, R., (2005). Long Arc of Justice: lesbian and gay marriage, equality, and rights, New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press, Retrieved Sept. 30, 2011 from the Ashford Online Library
Montgomery, P., (2008, June). Myths about gay marriage, People for the American Way Foundation, Retrieved Oct. 22, from http://www.alternet.org/sex/88470/
Polikoff, N., (2008). Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: valuing all families under the law, Boston, MA, USA: Beacon Press, Retrieved Sept. 30, 2011 from the Ashford Online Library
Rimmerman, C., & Wilcox, C., (2007). Politics of same-sex marriage, Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press, Retrieved Sept. 30, 2011 from the Ashford Online Library
Stein, S., (2011, August). Rick Perry signs anti-gay marriage pledge before mingling with virulently anti-gay activist, The Huffington Post, Retrieved Oct. 2 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/rick-perry-gay-marriage_n_938125.html
