Legalizing Same Sex Marriage: A Strength to the Institution

(OK, so I saved my upper-level writing class for my last semester. And it's a shame, because it was one of my favorites, and I really feel like I could have used a lot of the things I learned in that class in previous semesters. Anyway, this is my final paper for your enjoyment... an argument for same-sex marriage. Also, it's long. Also, sorry this blog is so homosexuality-centric. I promise to blog about something else soon. Turns out I have a lot to get off my chest.)

Within the last ten years, same sex marriage has come to the surface of the United States' political climate and will likely be one of the largest political issues of this generation. Opinions are vast and varied on the subject, and the issue is extraordinarily complex. But for me, the issue comes down to basic human rights. Arguments abound about the damage that granting same sex marriages will do to the institution of marriage in general.

Gary Bauer, a conservative American politician, is clear about his views on granting same-sex unions. "Granting same-sex unions the same moral and legal standing as marriage is destructive of society's most important institution. At a time when Americans increasingly are concerned over the breakdown of the family, marriage and morality, this action is extremely damaging" (qtd. in Raspberry 91). But if same sex marriages continue to be outlawed, society would be overlooking consequences that may jeopardize the importance of the marriage they are trying to protect.

The institution of marriage has undergone extraordinary change in the last century. The introduction of contraceptives in 1960 alone has lead to a significant change in average marriage age among young women (from age 23 for those born from 1930 to 1950 to age 25.5 for those born in 1957). In this decade, 70 to 75 percent of people agree that a man or a woman can have a full and complete life without getting married (Hodder). Since the 1960s, the proportion of those who marry in the United States has decreased by 50 percent. (LaSala) But despite these changes in marriage, Americans are still very prone to marriage (Hodder). Both conservatives and same-sex marriage proponents agree that marriage is the building block of society and promote its importance (LaSala).

This is because with marriage comes a responsibility and commitment (witnessed by the state) between those marrying beyond any commitment made before. Those engaged promise to care for one another, to strengthen and give stability to one another. This commitment adds a binding agent for families, a result of the public nature of the rite. This commitment "reminds spouses, during the rough patches, of what they mean to each other, by reminding them of what their marriage means to people who love them" (Rauch).

However, the strength of marriage does waver. Columnist William Raspberry says, "The Lowering of the barriers against sex outside of marriage, as we countenance out-of-wedlock births, teenage sex and other formerly prohibited activities, threatens marriage. A lot of people want to have extramarital sex. Reducing the sanctions against something people want to do will lead more people to do it" (Raspberry 92).

As homosexuals have become a more mainstream part of society, committed homosexual couples have begun to enjoy some of the government and societal benefits of a committed relationship given through civil unions. Most homosexuals agree that these rights are better than nothing, a temporary fix and a step in the right direction. However, these civil unions quickly become what author Jonathan Rauch calls "Marriage-Lite." These unions provide the benefits of Marriage with a seemingly lower commitment level (Rauch).

While several states have offered civil unions, the definitions of these unions is varied. Several states and many cities have required some sort of domestic partner registry because the definition of a "partner" can be varied (what's the difference between a roommate and a partner?). Some unions provide hospital visitation and child care leave rights for same-sex couples. In the past, to be terminated, Californians only had to mail in a form signed by one member of the civil union to terminate it. Some states recognize other states' unions, most do not. Because these benefits are offered by states and not federally, the variation among unions does not stop there. These benefits do not usually cross state lines since most states don't offer such unions and because there is no Federal standard to unify these unions (Rauch).

Herein lies the danger of not legalizing same-sex marriages. Since these civil union and domestic partnership programs have been offered in certain states , about two-thirds of programs also provide benefits for opposite-sex couples, providing an option other than marriage. Like choosing from a menu at a restaurant, a young couple wishing to make a societal commitment 20 years from now may face a smorgasbord of commitment options.

It is true that implementing same-sex marriage is a radical redefinition of what marriage is. It would be an unprecedented societal change. But the idea of marriage would be strengthened if it were available to all citizens (Sullivan 95-97). If marriage were granted to same-sex couples, it would certainly mean that there was a new definition of marriage in the United States. But isn't a new definition better than an indefinable one?

Rauch agrees, "There is no substitute for marriage, and trying to concoct one is hazardous business. … Conservatives may argue that allowing gay marriage endangers matrimony for straights; in fact, creating alternatives to marriage, such as civil unions, is far more likely to undermine the institution of marriage. Both for gays and for society, only marriage will really do. Only marriage is marriage" (Rauch).

But perhaps a state offers only the most traditional union to straight couples only. Isn't this a protection of marriage? Not exactly. Since the 1970s, 45 states have passed Defense of Marriage statues defining marriage as a heterosexual union. For conservatives, this may seem like a victory. However, California, perhaps the most liberal state when it comes to gay unions, is among these states (States Address Gay Marriage). However, as time progresses, homosexuality is becoming more broadly accepted as a legitimate lifestyle.

Without gay marriage, gay people will continue to cohabitate and have sex. They will still desire to make commitments to each other. And they will. Freedom to marry among the gay population will provide a path to commitment that is otherwise lacking among the population. Acknowledging that persons in a same-sex relationship have the same address seems to be the best gay couples can get as far as government recognition in some states. Without a societal commitment system for gays in these states, cohabitation would follow homosexuality on the road to mainstream. Wouldn't this weaken the idea of marriage?

Instead, providing marriage for same sex partners would promote monogamy and therefore strengthen marriage. Though some members of the male homosexual population almost certainly are more sexually active and have more sexual partners than heterosexual men (and enjoy this privilege), others crave the stability and commitment of a marriage (Sullivan 96). Providing an option to marry for same-sex couples would provide an avenue that would certainly promote monogamy in the gay sub-culture and in broader American culture. Any increase in monogamy is a point for the strength of marriage in society.

Some argue that it is not marriage at all that is the problem. The problem is the ability of married couples to have children that is the problem.

"Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in step-families or cohabitating relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes…. There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents" (qtd. in Gallagher, "Children Need Mothers and Fathers").

Who could argue that those growing up in healthy, "low-conflict" homes are the happiest; they turn out the best. Truly a one father, one mother situation is the best situation for rearing a child. This argument, however, is a blind one. Aren't each of us reared in less-than-perfect conditions? Even straight couples are prone to abuse, addictions, discipline problems and infidelity—certainly a few of the many less-than-advantageous situations children are reared in.

Wouldn't a healthy gay home be a healthier and more stable environment for an otherwise unwanted child than a relentless series of foster homes, or no homes at all? Adoptions for gay couples should be considered as any adoption is considered, on a case-by-case basis.

Some argue that granting same-sex marriage would threaten religious rights of those religions that teach against homosexuality, "for if orientation is like race, then people who oppose gay marriage will be treated under law like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Sure, we don't arrest people for being racists, but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination, not only by government, but also by private entities" (Gallagher, "Banned in Boston").

In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston announced that because its conflict with adoption to same-sex couples, it was getting out of the adoption business (the Catholic Church professes that homosexuality is morally wrong). In Massachusetts, as in other states, there are laws against orientation discrimination, and since the charity is partially state-sponsored, the charity had a conflict on its hands. Pleas were offered by Catholic Officials to Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption to orientation discrimination. But Romney responded that he didn't have authority to grant an exception, but that it would be left up to the State Legislature (none of whom supported the exemption). Writer Maggie Gallagher comments, "When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protest religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage" (Gallagher, "Banned in Boston").

However, this threat to religious freedom (which I believe is legitimate), is merely brought to our attention by same sex marriage. It is not a result of granting same sex unions in Massachusetts. Wouldn't there still be moral ambiguities and conflict between religion and government if same-sex unions were eliminated in Massachusetts? Of course there would. Same sex marriage is not the cause of this moral conflict, it is simply and indicator of it. It indicates weakness in free speech and freedom of religion law. And with these repairs made, won't we be better off anyway?

Granting same sex marriage will, essentially, keep things simple when it comes to the government issuance of marriage contracts. Ambiguities among civil unions and varied definitions of marriage will be distilled to one, unified marriage that is offered to any two people regardless of sex. It will promote monogamy and commitment among those who already strive to do so.

After all, aren't the strongest policies the simple ones?


Works Cited

Gallagher, Maggie. "What Marriage is For" Weekly Standard August 4-11 2003: 22-25. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source. David O. McKay Library, Rexburg, ID. 26 November 2008 .

---. "It's the Final Step in Killing Marriage" Reading and Writing Short Arguments. 5th ed. Ed William Vesterman. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 94.

Gallagher, Maggie. "Banned in Boston" Weekly Standard May 15, 2006: 20-26. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source. David O. McKay Library, Rexburg, ID. 26 November 2008 .

Hodder, Harbour Fraser. "The Future of Marriage" Harvard Magazine November/December 2004: 38+. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source. David O. McKay Library, Rexburg, ID. 26 November 2008 .

Raspberry, William. "Why Fear Same-Sex Marriages?" Reading and Writing Short Arguments. 5th ed. Ed William Vesterman. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 91-92.

Rauch, Jonathan. "Dire Straights" Washington Monthly April 2004: 20-23. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source. David O. McKay Library, Rexburg, ID. 26 November 2008 .

"States Address Gay Marriage" Stateline.org May 25, 2008. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source. David O. McKay Library, Rexburg, ID. 26 November 2008 .

Sullivan, Andrew. "Commited Couples would Stabilize Society" Reading and Writing Short Arguments. 5th ed. Ed William Vesterman. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 95-97.