Same-sex marriage: legal, social, and cultural perspectives

¶ … same-sex marriage. Specifically, it will discuss if same-sex marriage is a threat to family and national values, including who is threatened and why they feel threatened. Same-sex marriage is a contentious issue facing the states today. Some states have sanctioned same-sex marriages, while others have passed laws stating marriage must occur between a "man and woman" only. In a nation that prides itself on tolerance and democracy, banning same-sex marriages is not only irrational, it is intolerant and biased. Same-sex marriages should be available for gay and lesbian couples, they should be able to celebrate their commitment and enjoy the benefits of marriage.

Marriage is one of the oldest unions known to humankind. It is a celebration of commitment, love, and sharing, and affords couples a vast number of legal and personal benefits. Marriage can be traditional, celebrated in a church, or non-traditional, celebrated on a beach in Hawaii. Couple exchange vows they have written themselves, or recite traditional vows read from a Bible. A group of authors writing on same-sex marriage note,

Marriage is a known commodity, permitting couples to travel without playing 'now you're legally next of kin; now you're legally not.' It is a social statement, describing and defining one's relationships and place in society. It is also a personal statement of commitment that receives public support and can help achieve common aspirations for stability and structure in life. It has spiritual significance for many of us and familial significance for nearly all of us (Wardle, Strasser, Duncan, & Coolidge, 2003, p. 4).

Nevertheless, in most states in America, there is one thing marriage is not. It is not available to same-sex couples who want to celebrate their own love and commitment. Two states, Hawaii and Vermont, have sanctioned same-sex unions, while others have not. Same-sex unions are extremely controversial, and many groups vehemently oppose them for "moral" or other reasons. One thing is certain. Same-sex marriage is not a new idea, and the issue will not simply disappear. Eventually, Americans are going to have to face the fact that same-sex unions are an integral part of the gay and lesbian lifestyle, and they should be legal.

Marriage is an ancient institution, and it has always been perceived as the "proper" thing for couples who love each other to do. Marriage celebrates love and commitment, and the desire to spend the rest of your life with one, and only one other. The institution of marriage has never suffered from a "bad" reputation. In the 1960s and 70s, many young people avoided marriage calling it "just a piece of paper." However, for the most part, marriage has always been a part of our society, and it always been a revered institution.

Today, marriage often means different things to different couples. There is more divorce in America than ever before, and single-parent families are on the rise. or, are they? There have been fluctuations in marriage and divorce throughout America's history. Another author notes, "In 1867 there were 9.6 marriages per 1,000 people. A hundred years later, in 1967, there were 9.7. The rate reached a low of 7.9 in 1932 and an all-time high of 16.4 in 1946, a peak quickly followed by a brief but huge surge in divorce" (Coontz, 1997, p. 30). Some of the nostalgia Americans may feel for the sacred institution of marriage, may be just that - nostalgia based on fond memories rather than concrete facts.

Many Americans tend to look back at the 1950s as the epitome of happily married life, with the perfectly dressed mother seeing the husband off to work, the children off to school, and happily managing the home, waiting only for their return. However, the 1940s and 50s had their share of problems, as well. Author Coontz states, "By 1946 one in every three marriages was ending in divorce. Even couples who stayed together went through rough times, as an acute housing shortage forced families to double up with relatives or friends. Tempers frayed and generational relations grew strained" (Coontz, 1997, p. 35). Nevertheless, most people were married in the 1950s, 86% of 1950s children grew up in two-parent households, and 90% of all households were families (Coontz, 1997, p. 37). Thus, marriage played a large role in society, and the unmarried were certainly the minority. Marriage has always had its difficulties, and it will continue to flow with changes in American society. However, there are many things testing marriages today, from two-parents working to support the family to many more single parents raising children on their own.

One of the arguments many same-sex partners face against their unions is the issue of having and raising children. In fact, in 1970, a Michigan court decreed that marriage was "a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children'" (Hohengarten, 1994). Many people oppose same-sex marriage because the couple cannot biologically have children of their own. However, many same-sex couples do raise children, and it is an important part of their relationship. One author states, "About one-fourth of the 600,000 same-sex couples currently living together in the United States are raising children" (Pope, 2004). Some couples adopt children, others have surrogate children, and still others use the donor program to have a biological child with another person. All of these couples choose to raise children as part of their commitment, and thus, the argument that same-sex partners cannot raise children can and is being overcome every day. An attorney notes, "In other cases, neither same-sex partner may be a biological parent, but one may be a legal parent by virtue of adoption, and both may be functional parents" (Hohengarten, 1994). In addition, many marriages today are also childless by choice, and yet the partners are loving and committed. Thus, same-sex couples who remain childless are no different from any heterosexual couple who remains childless by choice. The argument that marriage exists solely for procreation seems outdated and irrational in a world where many couples straight or gay, choose not to have children.

Divorce has always been a problem in the country, but it seems to be more of a problem today. Many couples no longer expect to spend the rest of their lives with one person. Divorces are relatively simple to obtain, and they no longer carry the social or personal stigma they did even a few decades ago. As author Coontz continues, "Divorce rates in America rose steadily until World War II, fell briefly during the 1950s, and took off again during the late 1960s. The divorce rate crested near the end of the 1970s, leveled off in the 1980s, and very slightly receded from 1988 to 1993" (Coontz, 1997, p. 31). Today, divorce seems to be on the rise again, and Coontz also notes the average age of a marriage that ends in divorce is only 6.3 years (Coontz, 1997, p. 31). Thus, divorced couples are not giving their marriages a chance to grow and mature, they simply look for a way out when they encounter problems.

In many couples, there seems to be less of a commitment to each other and to the marriage in general, and this seems especially true in the instability and short lengths of many Hollywood marriages. These break-ups make the nightly news and seem to fascinate the rest of the population, but they indicate the lack of commitment that is common in many marriages today. Interestingly, at a time when many traditional couples face far more problems with commitment and marriage, more gay and lesbian couples are attempting to commit for a lifetime. More gay couples are celebrating their commitment to each other than ever before, and if they cannot do it legally, they still celebrate with commitment ceremonies, church "weddings," and ceremonies in states that allow these commitment exchanges. The traditional family may be losing ground in the 21st century, but non-traditional families are the norm now, and that includes same-sex couples in committed, loving relationships, raising families, and spending their lifetimes together.

Perceptions of and attitudes toward homosexuality today, from riots in the 1950s to "Ellen" and "Queer Eye"

Everywhere you go today, it seems gay people are coming out of the closet. They have their own television shows, they celebrate their homosexuality, and they are becoming more accepted by many facets of society. Another author notes, "Over the course of the last 40 years civil society has become more accepting of gay people. The sexual behavior of gay people is probably as diverse as is it among heterosexuals" (Pope, 2004). That has not always been the case.

The arguments against legitimizing same-sex marriage are often based on religious or moral grounds. One writer states, "Indeed, there are substantial indications that legalizing same-sex marriage would undermine some of the important social purposes for marriage and would ultimately harm society" (Wardle, 2001, p. 771). Wardle goes on to argue that legalizing same-sex unions would "devalue" the importance of marriage in our society, and that same-sex unions do not make the same "contributions to society" that traditional unions do (Wardle, 2001, p. 771). His arguments center on the public responsibilities of marriage. He writes, "This is true because legal marriage is a public institution, created by law to promote public policy and to further social interests" (Wardle, 2001, p. 771). He goes on to state that traditional marriages foster "childrearing, economic stability, and channel sexual behavior" (Wardle, 2001, p. 771). Unfortunately, these arguments seem outmoded and irrational. If this is the purpose of traditional marriage, then clearly, hundreds of thousands of couples are not engaged in socially responsible marriages. They channel their sexual behavior outside the marriage, they are economically unsound, and they do not raise children. Thus, traditional marriage is not supporting society as Wardle sees it, and perhaps the entire institution should be overhauled. Wardle's arguments are illogical at best, and do not effectively argue against same-sex unions at all.

Religious groups are very vocal opponents of same-sex marriage for a number of reasons. Most object to homosexual unions of any kind because church teachings teach that homosexuality is wrong. The Catholic Church has gone so far as to deem homosexual acts "evil," "depraved," and "gravely unjust" (Pope, 2004). Thus, more religious groups strongly object to any recognition of same-sex unions, whether marriage or simply recognizing same-sex unions. Many other religious groups agree with the Catholic position and there are few churches that will even allow a same-sex civil union to occur inside their walls. Most religious groups also believe same-sex unions threaten the traditional family, and oppose them for this reason as well. Tolerance is supposed to be one of the basic tenets of most religions, and yet, they are extremely intolerant of alternative lifestyles. Many gay partners are extremely spiritual, and hope for the approval of their church as well as society for their unions. It seems that tolerance and understanding would be far more appealing tenets of faith, rather than intolerance and rigidity. Author Pope feels the Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage is flawed. He writes, "The major flaw involves a persistent tendency to communicate a mixed message about the worth of gay people and their place in the life of the civil community" (Pope, 2004). Again, basic rights seem to be ignored in the question of same-sex unions, as if gay partners do not deserve the same rights and benefits as straight partners.

Many opponents feel same-sex marriages threaten the fabric of American culture and values. They believe they threaten marriage as well. However, as many researchers and experts have shown, these unions do not threaten the fabric of society. If anything, they strengthen it by allowing more tolerance and understanding in society. In countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, who support same-sex unions, society has not been reduced to immoral anarchy. Instead, most people believe society has become more tolerant of alternate lifestyles, and same-sex partners are seen as viable and productive members of society, which they are. As Barney Frank, a gay congressional representative from Massachusetts asked Congress, "When I go home from today's work and I choose because of my nature to associate will another man, how is that a problem for you? How does that hurt you?'" (Quittner & Graham, 2004). Obviously, it does not hurt anyone, and those threatened by it should question their own tolerance.

Surprisingly, some of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage are homosexuals. One man wrote, "By buying into this oppressive, misogynist institution, those gays who wanted to do so were endangering, and putting at risk, the queer culture" (Alderson, 2004). Of course, not all of the gay community is against same-sex unions, and many feel those opposed are actually a small minority. However, there are some in the gay community who seem as intolerant of same-sex unions as those who oppose on moral and/or religious grounds, and for a surprising number of reasons. As long as some gay community members oppose marriage, it will be more difficult to gain support of same-sex unions in the straight community.

The federal and state legal positions on same-sex marriage vary. Many states have passed laws banning marriage between anyone but a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage has made the headlines recently over several legal incidents, but it has been before the courts many times before. In 1970, two men applied for a marriage license in Minnesota, and were refused, and the issue made it all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which upheld the refusal. Therefore, same-sex marriage is not a new issue, and it has been unsolved for far too long. The legalities of same-sex marriage are argued throughout the country. One lawyer notes, "Viewed functionally, legal marriage is essentially a binding commitment uniting two intimately related adults, a commitment which sustains the relationship between such adults by structuring their dealings with each other and with third parties" (Hohengarten, 1994). However, this is not the case with a majority of states and the federal government. In 1996, the federal Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman, and several states have followed suit enacting similar acts.

Two states, Vermont and Hawaii, recognize same-sex unions, and Massachusetts recognized them for a time until the issue ended up in court. San Francisco also recognized them for a period of time. Vermont has also created a set of laws that are more favorable to partners in same-sex marriages, including benefits and other legal rights. It seems that eventually more states will begin to accept same-sex marriages. It is simply the right thing to do, but more than that, it is the responsible thing to do. Many states have followed the federal government's footsteps and passed laws confining marriage to a man and woman. However, many have not, and this gives at least some hope to partners in homosexual relationships. Acceptance in foreign countries has sent many same-sex partners overseas to maintain their relationship. It is sad that Americans cannot find acceptance in their own country, and must travel overseas to gain acceptance and find happiness.

In a world filled with warfare, terrorism, and intolerance, it seems people need to come together and support each other rather than tear each other down. Same-sex unions have been legalized in the Netherlands, Denmark, and in some areas of Canada (Alderson, 2004), and there are other same-sex arrangements in many other European countries, as well. It is time to legalize these unions in the United States, as well. Tolerance, acceptance, and equal rights for all, regardless of sexual persuasion help build strong communities and even stronger nations. In addition, there is another argument for gay marriage that is often overlooked, and that is the issue of equal rights. Same-sex partners who want to marry are effectively being discriminated against because of their sexuality, and for a country that prides itself on equality, this is an outrage. Discrimination was supposed to have ended with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and yet, it still occurs today in many areas of society - including same-sex marriage. The only way to end the discrimination is to legalize the unions.