Gay Marriage Should Be Accepted

Gay Marriage Should Be Accepted and Legalized

Why is there such strong resistance to allowing same sex couples to get married if they want to? Why prevent two adults from joining hands in matrimony -- just because they are the same sex? This paper provides the reasons opponents of same sex marriage use to justify their positions. This paper argues though that it is unfair, and it is a violation of their Constitutional rights, to prevent same sex couples from getting married. This paper also points to the fact that attitudes in American are changing and there is less opposition to same sex couples getting married than there was a few years ago.

Updating the legal picture on gay marriage

There are five states in the U.S. that sanction same sex marriage and allow licenses to be issues by licensed clergy: Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. The Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon also permits same sex marriage. In New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland, the states recognize the legality of same sex marriage but do not permit those marriages to be conducted in those states.

In California, voters narrowly passed Proposition 8 in November 2008, which banned same sex unions. But an appeal was launched and in August 2010 U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Proposition 8 "violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice" (Dolan, 2010). The plaintiffs that brought this suit forward contended that Proposition 8 violates the rights of couples to "Due Process" and takes away their rights under the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment. The judge wrote that Proposition 8 "…fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license" (Dolan, 2010). He went on to explain that Proposition 8 "does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples" (Dolan, 2010).

Meanwhile the ruling was appealed to the Federal Appeals Court (Ninth Circuit) by those opposed to gay marriage, and a hearing is to take place in early December. The chances are that this issue will wind up in the Supreme Court of the United States perhaps in a year or two. The "High Court, while increasingly sympathetic to gay rights, usually prefers moving in small, incremental steps, and regularly overturns rulings by the more liberal Ninth Circuit," writes Bob Egelko in the San Francisco Chronicle.

American attitudes are changing towards gay marriage

An article in the journal Social Work (Avery, et al., 2007, p. 71) points out that attitudes are slowly evolving in a positive way toward gays. Avery reports that in 1999 polls showed that "two-thirds of Americans" believed gay and lesbian couples should not have the same rights as heterosexual "when it comes to marriage" (p. 71). But more recent polling (Gallup poll conducted in May 2004) 49% of respondents agree that gay and lesbians should have the same rights to get married as heterosexuals. That is a very dramatic shift in opinion. A March 1966 poll referenced by Avery showed that 68% of those polled were opposed to legalizing marriage between same sex couples; in 2004 the percentage opposed to same sex marriage dropped to 61% (p. 75).

One of the justifications given -- by those against gay marriage -- for opposing gay marriage is that gay parents aren't good at raising children, that in order to "develop correctly" children need a father and a mother, not two mothers or two fathers. But Avery's data (p. 73) shows a study disputing that reasoning. "Despite the pervasive conception that having same-sex parents would be detrimental to a child's upbringing," Avery writes, a study was conducted of 55 children (19 were raised by lesbian couples, 10 by single mothers and 26 by heterosexual couples) and it found "uniformity among the categories vis-a-vis social skills, well-being, and academic performance" (Avery, p. 73).

What are the reasons given for opposition to same sex marriage?

The American Family Association (AFA) -- a "right wing advocacy group" -- has published ten arguments against same sex marriage. Tom Head with About.com lists a few of these reasons and briefly rebuts them.

AFA Argument #1: gay marriage would "destroy the institution of marriage": there is no credible evidence to show that this is true; the Scandinavian students that AFA refers to (that same sex marriage reduces heterosexual marriage) "has been discredited" (head). AFA Argument #4: same-sex marriage would require schools to teach tolerance: Head writes that there will be no requirement for schools to respond in any way to laws about marriage, other than to study laws in social studies whatever they may be.

AFA Argument #7: that Social Security can't afford to pay for same-sex couples: there is no basis for any economic argument to be made here -- if 4% of the U.S. population is identified as lesbian or gay "…and half of lesbians and gay men get married, that is only a 2% increase in the national marriage rate" not enough to make much of a difference in federal payouts (Head, 2010). AFA Argument #9: same-sex marriage would make "evangelism more difficult": Head finds it hard to understand why any Christian "would see a social policy they don't like as an obstacle to evangelism" (Head, p. 2). He points out that the back during the time of the Roman Empire, the Romans killed Christians, slaughtering them by the hundreds, harassing them and searching them out, and yet evangelism was never stopped in those times.

Maxwell Payne writes about other reasons that Americans oppose gay marriage, and some of these reasons are a bit less extreme than those put forward by the AFA group. For example, some who are opposed to gay marriage say that it is against their religion, that the Bible condemns gays and gay marriage. Those opposed to gay marriage can find quotes in the Bible that they say proves it is immoral and contrary to God's will. The rebut that point, Payne writes that "…when anti-gay marriage individuals quote religious 'doctrine' they are just quoting another human with the same ability to be bias or judgmental" (Payne, 2010, p. 1).

One of the passages in the Old Testament that those against same sex marriage quote is from Leviticus Chapter 18 verses 22-23: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Old Testament). In Leviticus Chapter 20, verse 13: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death" (Old Testament). But how trustworthy and relevant is the Old Testament in 2010? If American society was adhering to all passages in the Old Testament, would those pronouncement mesh with today's civil laws? The answer is that in many cases the Old Testament's assertions would be out of line with the values and laws of 2010.

For example, in Judges Chapter 19, verses 22-30, "sons of Belial" rapped on the door of the house and wanted a man to come out of the house so they could presumably attack him. But the master of the house instead said, "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine, and do with them [the concubine] what seemeth good unto you, but unto this man do not so vile a thing" (Old Testament). So the master of the house brought his daughter out "…and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning and when the day began to spring, they let her go" (Old Testament). Would a father who opposes in 2010 gay marriage go along with the Bible, and allow several men to rape his daughter? The answer is obvious. And the Old Testament of the Bible is certainly a powerful book full of poignant stories, but it cannot be interchanged with today's morals, values and laws.

The Old Testament also condones slavery in several instances. Slavery was officially outlawed in the U.S. In the 19th Century. But in the Bible, in Exodus 21 (verse 2) this law of "Hebrew Servants" was written: "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything" (Old Testament). And verse 7 of Exodus 21 reads: "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do" (Old Testament).

As to the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope recently criticized Spanish laws that allow gay marriage. In November 2010, the Pope was visiting in Spain and he said that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" (Winfield, 2010). He went on to say that families are built on "indissoluble love of a man and a woman" and this is in keeping with Catholic tenets that have been in place for many years.

Are television networks giving fair representation to gay marriage and gay rights?

A scholarly, empirically researched article in the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media points out that while network television stories do discuss the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage, gays and lesbians are "…rarely given the opportunity to offer their own perspectives" (Moscowitz, 2010, p. 36). The research in this article involved using 93 stories taped from network TV that represented the gay marriage issue. There were 38 stories gleaned from ABC; 29 from NBC, and 26 from CBS. The video was obtained from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive.

A total of 12,419 seconds (about 207 minutes) of total time was carefully reviewed in these 93 news stories on national television. The analysis was conducted based on three components: the news story; each source cited in the story; and "each gay or lesbian couple" (Moscowitz, p. 31). The findings show that the "debate" in the video clips "was dominated by conventionally 'straight' perspectives." And while gay and lesbian couples and gay rights activists made up "16% and 8.2% respectively," of the sources that were cited in the video reports, political figures commenting on the issue made up 27% of the time, "conservative activists" composed 13.4% of the sources, and the president (Bush) and White House spokespersons were 10% of the sources shown on the video news reports (Moscowitz, p. 36).

The president and his representatives, conservatives who are against gay marriage, political and legal analysts, religious leaders "…were allowed more time to speak in news reports on the marriage issues than were gay and lesbian citizens" (Moscowitz, p. 36). Of the gay and lesbian couples that were the focus of the 93 news stories, only "20%" were given the opportunity "to speak at all." In other words, the gays and lesbians in these news stories appeared more as "image bites" than "sound bites" and the couples that were the "dominant visual focus" of the 96 stories "contributed little to the linguistic content of the stories"(Moscowitz, p. 36). Another way of saying what the appearance of the gays and lesbians amounted to was that "they were granted the status of visual ornamentation," Moscowitz explains (p. 36).