Same-Sex Marriage: An Idea Whose

Same-Sex Marriage: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Quietly, a revolution is occurring in America. While same-sex marriage remains a hot-button issue in America's so-called culture wars amongst ideologues, if current trends continue state legislatures may quietly allow same-sex marriage to occur between couples, and over time the issue may effectively be resolved on a state-by-state basis, rather than remain a debate at the forefront of the national consciousness. In April of 2009, Vermont became the fourth state to recognize gay marriage. The D.C. Council had already voted to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states right before the Vermont decision. Wrote one reporter: "The two actions give same-sex marriage proponents new momentum, following a similar victory…in Iowa's Supreme Court" (Richburg 2009).

Today, New York also recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states, and Governor David Paterson actively demonstrated in support of full marriage rights for same-sex couples. The openly gay speaker of the New York City Council, Christine Quinn, is also a vocal proponent of legalizing same sex marriage in the state of New York as is New York City Mayor Bloomberg (King 2009). However, the Vermont victory was considered especially striking, given that the bill's passing demanded and achieved an override of the governor's veto. The votes were "100 to 49 to override the governor's veto" (Richburg 2009). New Hampshire quickly followed Vermont's example: "The New Hampshire legislature approved revisions to a same-sex marriage bill on Wednesday, and Gov. John Lynch promptly signed the legislation, making the state the sixth to let gay couples wed" (Goodnough 2009)

The arguments for and against same-sex marriage have become familiar. Arguments for same-sex unions, both heterosexual and homosexual, state that allowing marriage for gay couples conveys dignity and respect to gay couples as human beings. "The institution of marriage conveys dignity and respect towards a couple that make a lifetime commitment to support each other...Same-sex couples deserve this dignity and respect" (SSM, 2009, Religious tolerance). As more and more single-sex couples adopt, bring previous children to their union, or even have children through surrogates or artificial insemination, not only does denying couples such dignity foster social harm, it also hurts the couples' children who are subject to a stigma of being the results of an 'out of wedlock' birth (Hanson 2007). This illustrates, "denying one group the right to marry has many adverse emotional and financial consequences," including denial of shared Social Security and Medicare benefits, medical leave, property inheritance, the right to visit a spouse in the hospital, to medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, as well as the overall security of the couple and of their children" (SSM, 2009, Religious tolerance).

Prohibition of same-sex unions, in other words, has ramifications beyond a denial of romantic love and hurts individuals far beyond the immediate couple. Furthermore, a violation of one group's civil rights ultimately harms all of society. "Denying marriage to same-sex couples removes from one group a fundamental, important human right -- the right to marry the person that one loves and to whom one has made a commitment. That is unfair and unjust in a democracy" (SSM, 2009, Religious tolerance). In February of 1997, "the U.S. Government issued a list of over 1000 laws giving special rights, privileges and responsibilities to heterosexual married couples. Gay and lesbian committed couples are excluded from these laws and denied the benefits and protections that they would otherwise bring to themselves and their children" (Couples who are not permitted to marry, 2009, Religious Tolerance). In Minnesota, support for the state permitting gay marriage was directly tied to the economic crisis: "We're in a time of economic crisis, and it's difficult for everyone," said one supporter, as it is "more difficult for those families that don't have access to those basic provisions for economic security," including the joint ownership of property; joint credit; the ability to share health-care benefits with a partner; and inheritance rights" (Welch 2009)

To those who would call same-sex union unnatural, historians and archeologists have amassed considerable evidence that same-sex unions are a longstanding practice in human history. In ancient Egypt "a tomb of a same-sex gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep was discovered in 1964 in the necropolis of Saqqara, Egypt. The tomb dates to the Fifth Dynasty (circa 2,500 BCE), and shows that homosexual marriages date back over 4 millennia" (Couples who are/were not permitted to marry, 2009, Religious tolerance). Until it became dogma to condemn homosexuality, the early Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches "both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. The churches used ceremonies which were very similar to conventional heterosexual ceremonies" (Couples who are/were not permitted to marry, 2009. Religious tolerance).

Advocates for same-sex marriage point out similar arguments about 'naturalness' and tradition were waged to prevent African-American and Caucasian individuals from marrying. In language strikingly similar to the religious rhetoric of anti-gay marriage advocates. In 1869, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled "moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity" (The battle over interracial marriage, 2009, Religious Tolerance). In short, the union that produced the current president of the United States would have been effectively illegal. Today, "you ask leaders of the religious right to explain the difference between state bans on interracial marriage and bans on same-sex marriage, they hem and haw and eventually fall back on claims that the latter is unnatural or unbiblical" (Boston 2009)

Of course, the most obvious argument against the tide of popular opinion turning towards greater toleration of same-sex marriage in the United States is that on Election Day of 2008 California's Proposition 8 abolished same-sex marriage, although the court did not forcibly divorce couples who married during 2008 when marriages were legally permissible. The fact that this occurred on a historic election of the nation's first African-American president made the passing of Proposition 8 especially troubling for liberals. Anti-gay marriage advocates stated that "for most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow SSM, religious individuals and groups become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by marrying same-sex couples," despite the fact that many religions, including the Anglican religion, allow openly gay clergy (SSM, 2009. Religious tolerance). Anglican cleric and gay wrights advocate Gene Robinson gave the opening prayer at the president's inauguration, after all (Weiner 2009).

Anti-gay marriage advocates also state that "children thrive best when reared in a home with a married mother and father," and if gay marriage was legalized "schools would be required to teach that same-sex marriage is equivalent to opposite-sex marriage," which might conflict with many families' religious beliefs SSM, 2009. Religious tolerance). In Parker v. Hurley, a case decided by a federal court of appeals in Massachusetts in January 2008, parents were upset by a book their children read in school entitled Who's in a Family? The book depicted interracial families, a family without children, a family with two moms, and another with two dads. "In its final page, the book answered the question, 'who's in a family?' with 'the people who love you the most!'" (Feldblum 2009). Another parent was disturbed by a book "about a prince who is ordered by his mother to get married but who keeps rejecting the princesses he meets. Finally, he finds his true love- another prince!" (Feldblum 2009). The parents "didn't ask the school to change the curriculum, but they did ask for a special accommodation, namely that no teacher or adult be permitted to expose their children to materials or discussion about sexual orientation or same-sex unions without first notifying them and giving them the opportunity to pull their children out of such discussions. The school refused. Massachusetts state law gives parents prior notice and the right to 'opt out' with regard to curriculum that involves human sexuality issues. But, as the school explained to the parents, these materials did not deal with human sexuality. The parents sued, claiming their federal constitutional rights to raise their children as they wished and to practice their religion was being violated" (Feldblum 2009).

One of the leading proponents of Proposition 8 in California stated: "I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," (Garrison et al. 2008). "What Prop 8 did was simple. It added a new section 7.5 to Article I of the California state constitution with the following words: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.' Section 7 of Article I of the California constitution still proudly proclaims that no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law and that no person may be denied the equal protection of the laws; section 1 of that article also still provides Californians with an 'inalienable right' of privacy. But those sections can no longer be used, as they were by the California Supreme Court, to provide gay couples with the liberty and privacy rights of equal access to civil marriage," as the Court did previously (Feldblum 2009).