Imagine that you have just found the love of your life. Maybe what they say is true, love at first sight does exist. You would do anything for this person and you already know that you want to spend the rest of your life with him/her, but there’s just one thing holding you back. Your partner is the same gender as you are and millions of people around the world are telling you that it is wrong to love him/her, that homosexual relationships don’t matter as much as heterosexual relationships, and that you don’t deserve to get married. Deep down, you know that you love this person with all of your heart and that love is still love, no matter who it is between. The debate over same-sex marriage has gone on for too long and it is time to incorporate equality back into this country. Same-sex marriage should be legalized!
There are numerous reasons why same-sex marriage should be legal, but one of the most important is that it is a constitutional right. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that same-sex couples shall be denied the right to marriage so therefore, banning same-sex marriage should be considered discrimination (Driscoll). In their article, Driscoll and Stingl state that the Constitution simply says that “by the most succinct definition, marriage is a legal contract between two people that is sanctioned by society.” If marriage is a legal contract between two people, then why does it matter what two people it is between? And whoever it is between, society is expected to support that contract. When talking about interracial marriages in 1967, the Supreme Court said that states could not “define marriage in ways that violated core constitutional rights and that marriage should not be defined by the federal government” (Rauch, “A More Perfect Union”). It isn’t fair to say this about interracial marriage, and then not support same-sex marriage in the same way. By denying same-sex marriage and defining it as illegal, core constitutional rights are being violated and we are going against our own Constitution. This also deprives same-sex couples of the many benefits that come along with marriage. Heterosexual couples take simple things like hospital visitation rights, shared insurance, joint adoption rights and residency rights for granted where homosexual couples can only strive and dream for those benefits one day (Bonauto 739). Taylor McClellan, a student at Fairview High School, discusses the struggle that her family goes through on a daily basis when dealing with the lack of legal benefits for a homosexual parent. Her father has been openly gay for several years now and has been in a committed relationship with his partner, Michael, for almost 3 years. When asked how the legalization of same-sex marriage would affect her family, Taylor said:
“I would have a new step-dad! And my dad’s partner could become a US citizen by marriage. Now he has a student visa and we always have to deal with the fact that he could be sent back to Canada at any time. I just want my dad to be happy and to be able to express his love for Michael in every way” (McClellan).
Taylor and her family shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not Michael can stay with her father in the US. It is not right to deny someone the right to marry, take them away from the person that they love, and send them back to a country where they don’t want to be just because they aren’t attracted to the opposite sex. This is morally wrong and they shouldn’t have to earn these rights, they should be given to them just as they are given to heterosexual, interracial, inter-religious, and inter-cultural couples all the time.You can’t put a barrier on love. Same-sex marriage should be legal because marriage is about love, not who it is between. Marriage is the “ultimate expression of love and commitment” and same-sex couples should be able to experience this as well (Bonauto 739). Many people who oppose same-sex marriage, like Ron Crews, believe that marriage is mainly about being between a man and a woman because that has been the “legal, social, historical and theological definition throughout the ages” (739). What people like Crews may not understand is that “homosexuals seek not to redefine what marriage is. Instead, they seek to modify civil marriage to include them” (Mount). Again, this is another form of discrimination, excluding people because they are different. In an effort to support his claim, Crews says that “deliberately depriving a child of a mother and father is cruel and unfair” (739). Research shows that a child need two loving parent to flourish, not necessarily that a child needs a mother and father to flourish. Children need the example of healthy, long-term and committed relationships regardless of gender. If a child learns how to be responsible and faithful from two men rather than a man and a woman, it shouldn’t matter who teaches him. All that matters is that that child is learning what is important in life, that he knows how to treat the people around him and that his parents love him. Crews also states that “only the union of a woman and a man, with immutable XX and XY chromosomes in every cell of their bodies, representing the two halves of the human race, can make a marriage and produce the next generation” (739). Here, Ron Crews is implying that the main purpose of marriage is reproduction and since homosexual couples can’t reproduce, then they shouldn’t be allowed to get married. So what about childless, heterosexual marriages? If the main purpose of marriage is to reproduce, then should these couples that don’t have children be denied the right to marry as well? Of course not. This supports the fact that the real definition of marriage is about love, and not reproduction or who it is between. Everything is bound to change in some way over time and same-sex marriage is only a slight modification to the so-called “original definition” of marriage.
Many people who oppose same-sex marriage make the argument that it would increase the divorce rate and weaken marriage as a whole. “Opponents also see marriage having a shaky foundation in its current state … They see divorce as a major problem with marriage. The addition of gay marriage to the mix would weaken it even further, perhaps to the point of collapse” (Mount). This assumption is absurd and unreasonable because it is completely subjective. In fact, the opposite is true: “It is the absence, not the presence, of same-sex marriage that is undermining traditional unions” (Rauch, “The Marrying Kind”). Gay and lesbian individuals long to have and be a part of a family just like anyone else, and since same-sex marriage is illegal, they have resorted to trying to change who they are in order to achieve that goal. In the past, it has been common for homosexuals to enter into heterosexual marriages just that so that they can start a family, only to realize that they are living a lie and end up getting a divorce. This is one reason the divorce rate has increased. If same-sex marriage was legal, gay men and women wouldn’t have to force themselves to marry someone they aren’t attracted to and they could marry the person that they really love, causing the divorce rate to decrease. Making the assumption that same-sex marriage would weaken marriage is disrespectful to same-sex couples and it implies that they aren’t capable of true love and life-long commitment.
Marriage is one of the most important aspects in a family’s life and every family deserves to be a part of that, no matter what their race, ethnicity, religion, or gender. Same-sex couples just want to be accorded the same opportunity as everyone else: “We want the licenses, the vows, the rings, the honeymoons, the anniversaries, the benefits, and yes, the responsibilities and the routines” (Rauch, “The Marrying Kind”). Same-sex marriage is just another piece to the puzzle and it will only make this country stronger; “Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why they undermined marriage in an effort to keep homosexuals out” (Rauch, “The Marrying Kind”).
