It is baffling to me that in this day and age same-sex marriage is such a controversial issue. We were all taught from a young age that this country was founded as a haven from oppression. Yet despite what our history books told us in grade school, we see that this country was founded as a haven for specific religious groups but not as a shelter for all. Those who “settled here first” came with their own narrow convictions about right and wrong. It is true that our nation’s history is littered with prejudice and bigotry but we have made great strides to conquer those demons. In the last one hundred fifty years, women and people of color have earned equality in the eyes of the law and we finally have our first black president. Now that’s progress! Yet while our nation is improving, it still has a long way to go. Despite the growing awareness and acceptance of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community, our nation is still divided on the subject of Same Sex Marriage. While boasting equality for all, and condemning discrimination of people based on age, race, color, creed, and/or sexual orientation in many facets of life, our country still denies same-sex couples the same benefits, protection, and legal rights that “traditional” couples receive by way of legal marriage. As a result, many members of our community are unjustly denied the very basic rights and protections that the rest of us enjoy, simply based on who they love.
There are many who oppose same sex marriage, all for different reasons, ranging from homophobia to tradition and religion. Here are the most common oppositions to Same Sex Marriage (SSM).
· In many religions, homosexuality is a sin. Some religious leaders claim to fear that if SSM becomes legal, their churches will be forced to participate in such ceremonies (Robinson). In reality however, the government has no power to do so.
- There are people that are concerned that same-sex marriage will weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. They feel that if SSM was legalized it could provide a “slippery slope” in the legality of marriage, possibly leading to polygamy, and marriage to such things as animals and inanimate objects.
- A major trepidation that people who oppose SSM have is that it would further weaken their traditional family values. If same-sex marriage were to become legalized, then schools would have to teach children that SSM is equal to opposite-sex marriage and they feel that this would violate many parents’ beliefs. (Robinson)
Let’s begin by taking a look at the history of marriage. As noted by EJ Graff in the documentary “Tying the Knot”, it is very important to understand that the meaning of marriage has changed on numerous occasions in history to “suit each culture and class, each era and economy.” In the beginning, marriage was a means of survival, money, and power. In a time when people earned their living in one of two ways; property or skill, people who owned property married into similar families, resulting in the trade of properties. For those people without property, it was vital that they married another person who was from a family in the same trade, someone with the skills specific to that trade, to become business partners for life. Graff goes on to mention that courtship and love only began to factor into marriage through the financial freedom that factory work and entrepreneurship created in the 1920’s. This is when marriage became what we know it as today, a life-long bond between lovers.
Definition. This is a very important word. Let’s talk about the definition of marriage as defined by the United States’ federal government. Up until the year 1996, the federal government made no attempt to define marriage. That was a decision left to each state to decide ( Wiki, "Same-sex marriage in the United States"). It was the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that imposed an official definition specifying that a marriage was a union of one man and one woman. This definition, a single sentence in Proposition 8, is what keeps same sex partners from receiving the federal government benefits provided to heterosexual people and their spouses. Constricting the definition of marriage isn’t the only major blow to same sex couples that DOMA has levied. It has also declared that states have the right not to recognize same sex-marriages performed in other states. The battle over same-sex couple’s right to marry in the United States is nothing new. In fact, Nixon commented on the idea of same sex marriage as far back as 1960; "I can't go that far -- that's the year 2000" (Cootz, 256). I should note that Nixon’s comment was meant to emphasize how distant the idea was and that it was not an actual prediction. It is remarkable how close to the mark he actually hit. In the year 1990, three same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses in Hawaii and were refused. After being denied, the couples challenged the decision in circuit court in 1991, and the battle for SSM was waged. The case was lost but it was appealed in 1993 and it was ruled that it was unconstitutional and in violation of Hawaii’s equal protection guarantees against gender discrimination to deny gays the right to marry. The next year, a bill was passed in Hawaii with a new state policy in which marriage must only be permitted between a man and a woman (Robinson). Now, about this new state policy. With the major opposition to same-sex marriage being the concern for the sacrament of marriage and such emphasis on morality, it was no surprise for me to learn that the major funding and promotion for the bill was supplied by a church, specifically the Church of Latter Day Saints. They had a very precise and clever strategy that they executed to promote their agenda. Having canvased the area, they realized that a connection with the church might hurt the cause. To prevent this negative association, the Church of Latter Day Saints created a coalition called “Hawaii’s Future Today” and asked the Catholic Church to come on board as a front man. To further distance themselves, they carefully chose a young mother as the face of the coalition. This effectively kept the focus off the churches so they could quietly fund and orchestrate their plot (8: The Mormon Proposition). The Church of Latter Day Saints didn’t end their war on gay rights in Hawaii. Their next target was California and the list goes on. In fact, The Church of Latter Day Saints has played role in all thirty state elections outlawing same-sex marriage (Californians Against Hate). Have these people heard of Separation of Church and State? Religions have every right to stand behind their beliefs but their rights end there. They do not have the right to force others to abide by their dogmas. After all, the issue of same-sex marriage is a moral issue; not a legal one!
While we are on the subject of marriage and religion, I feel that it is a good time to point out that the Catholic Church didn’t consider marriage to be a sacrament until after the first one thousand years. Up until that point, it was purely secular (Graff). Let’s take a look at some of the threats that same-sex marriage supposedly poses to the heavily guarded “traditional” marriage. One popular objection is the belief that by allowing SSM to become legal, we will be opening the flood gates for legal polygamy, bestiality, and the marriage of objects. Same-sex marriage is the same as any other marriage; it is simply the recognition of two loving, life-long partners’ union in the eyes of our community and the law. There are people who fear that changing the federal definition would demean the institution of marriage. I wonder how much damage monogamous and loving couples could possibly do to an institution that already has a forty to sixty percent failure rate (Divorce in the United States). Clearly, this “sacred” institution is not being taken seriously by at least half of its heterosexual married couples and I’m just basing that on the divorce rate. I didn’t even factor in the “successful” heterosexual marriages where the spouses cheat on or abuse their “loved ones”. I also left out the percentage of marriages with partners too scared to leave. Is this what we need to protect? Is this what we hold so sacred? I’m just saying that opposite-sex marriage isn’t as immaculate as its defenders make it out to be.
Family values are another hot topic in the debate for same-sex marriages. Gay couples are often unfairly characterized as immoral and incapable of monogamy. Same-sex couples who are pursuing marriage are just looking for the same things the rest of us want: happiness, love, support, and family. I think that the assiduous battle same-sex couples are fighting to achieve, in equal recognition, illustrates those very values. There is even an added benefit to society in this arrangement. Since same-sex couples are unable to conceive the old fashioned way, many may opt for adoption if/when they decide to grow their families. This is not only fulfilling to the couples’ own desires; it gives a child who didn’t have a family a loving home.
Today, marriage is many things. First and foremost, it is a union of two loving people for a lifetime. It is also a financial merge in a society where it often takes two incomes just to live comfortably, let alone buy a house. Marriage provides security: emotionally, fiscally, and legally. By not including same-sex couples in the federal definition of marriage we are excluding them from over one thousand federal protections, benefits, and privileges that their heterosexual equivalents receive. Obviously, I am not going give you the whole list of benefits they are being denied on a federal level, but I want you to get an idea of how this battle isn’t just a fight over the title marriage, it’s a fight for equal protection as well. The following list is just a fraction of the benefits same-sex couples are currently not eligible for: assumption of spouse’s pension, automatic inheritance, automatic housing lease transfer, bereavement leave, burial determination, child custody, crime victim’s recovery benefits, divorce protections, domestic violence protection, exemption from property tax on partner’s death, immunity from testifying against spouse, insurance breaks, joint adoption and foster care, joint bankruptcy, medical decisions on behalf of partner, certain property rights, sick leave to care for partner, visitation of partner’s children, visitation of partner in hospital or prison, and wrongful death (loss of consort) benefits (Robinson).
It is time that society as a whole learns to at least accept and tolerate, if not support, same sex marriage. It’s time to stop treating the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community as outcasts and treat them as our equals. It is time to afford them the same rights, liberties, and respect that heterosexuals enjoy. It’s not about who you love that makes a happy, healthy, and successful marriage: it’s about how you love.
