Legalizing Gay Marriage -- Pro

Legalizing Gay Marriage -- Pro and Con, Morally and Legally

When recently, on February 7, 2005, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated that although he supported gay marriage on personal, ethical grounds, but worried that a recent ruling by a New York judge allowing same sex unions might get the city into legal troubles, he was roundly denounced as expressing a lack of political backbone. (Ruttenberg, 2005) Several gay elected officials at City Hall blasted the mayor for what State Senator Thomas K. Duane called cowardice, after the mayor stated that he intended to appeal the decision allowing gay marriages in the city, so that the metropolis could have greater legal clarification in the issue.

But clarification does not seem to be coming anytime soon, legally or morally.

Although both proponents and opponents of gay marriage approach the issue in America through the legalization process, the issue touches upon personal and religious convictions as well, on both sides of the debate. Bloomberg's difficulty highlights the fact that legalizing gay marriage is argued both for and against on moral, ethical, and religious as well as legal grounds -- hence the difficulty of defining the issue in a clear way. For instance, President Bush stated that he supported an amendment that would define marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman. He, like many who support his position, argued that historically, the maleness and femaleness of the two participants have defined the nature marriage contract. (Nwazota, 2003)

President Bush's stated position on gay marriage was released as a direct result of the decision by some state courts that homosexuals could be denied the benefits and recognition of a legal marriage. If history can act as a guide, however, an actual amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage is unlikely any time soon. Moreover, further muddying the waters the Supreme Court has avoid setting precedents regarding this issue, as in November 2004, for the second time the high court declined to intervene in the Massachusetts dispute regarding same sex unions and in May, the justices refused to block clerks from issuing the first marriage licenses. (McNeil-Lerher News Hour, 2005) the issue, this lack of action suggested, is still in the hands of societal as well as legal debate.

Thus the issue of same-sex marriage remains legally undefined in America. But same-sex advocates stress that gay marriages have existed in the form of partnerships since the beginning of time, even when they have not been formally recognized. They argue that gays do not chose their orientation, anymore than an individual chooses his or her race, and parallel their struggle to the laws that prohibited marital unions between the races in the American South. But gay advocates, even when individual politicians such as John Kerry have endorsed same-sex partnerships that would allow coverage of same sex partners for health insurance and other benefits, often find that public support runs dry when full-out marriage between partners is called for, because of the societal approval this endorsement implies, beyond mere tolerance like domestic partnerships. Even a Democrat, President Clinton signed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage to be a "legal union between one man and one woman." (Nwazota, 2003)

Currently many conservative political leaders from the Republican Party have aligned themselves President Bush's position on a formal amendment defining marriage in solely heterosexual terms. Several religious institutions, most recently the Catholic Church, have formally renounced the idea of same-sex marriage, referring to religious texts that define marriage as solely the union of a man and woman. But advocates of gay marriage counter that religious doctrine should not influence the creation of law, pointing to the Constitution's ban on an established religion, often referred to as separation of church and state. (Nwazota, 2005) to many Americans, marriage remains a cultural and religious institution and not just a legal debate, but their moral centers affect the way they see the law and the values of marriage the law should uphold. President Bush, during a recent news conference, cited his personal, religious beliefs in saying, "I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman." (Nwazota, 2005)