Arguments for legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States

Same Sex Marriage

The United States should legalize same sex marriage. There is no reasonable, rational argument for opposing same sex marriage, and many good arguments in favor of it. When emotion and superstition are removed from the debate, the conclusion is clear that legalizing same sex marriage is the only moral, just and rational response to this issue. This paper will make the case on moral grounds, ethical grounds, and legal grounds, that the United States should legalize same sex marriage. This paper will include a refutation of the arguments against same sex marriage as well.

Ethical Arguments

There are essentially two main schools of ethical thought that can be applied to the issue of same sex marriage. Ethics are an important consideration that is tied to how the country is run, and what role that government has. In the United States, government is created by the people for the people, and therefore has a democratic system that should reflect the will of the people. Whatever was thought in the past, today the majority of Americans support same sex marriage (Murray, 2013). The figures are even higher for younger people, in other words those who will be taking charge of this world. From an ethical perspective, the United States can be seen as utilitarian in nature. In this theory of ethics, the right action is that which supports the greatest good in outcomes for the greatest number of people (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2011).

While Mill had not developed the idea of utilitarianism when the founding fathers created the United States, clearly a democratic society was created under the idea that the United States should be a society where government exists to help create the greatest good for the greatest number. Normally, such a philosophical approach requires an analysis of tradeoffs, but in the case of same sex marriage it does not. There is no downside -- no material negative consequence to anybody -- while there is an upside. Under normal circumstances, when government has the opportunity to create a situation where there is a set of winners and no offsetting set of losers, that would be the ethical decision to make under a utilitarian approach.

Another type of ethical argument is deontological, wherein a categorical imperative defines the moral or just course. The major issue is that it needs to be defined where such an imperative might come from. Opponents of same sex marriage argue things like "natural law" or "God's law," both of which are abstractions molded to suit the needs of the speaker. If there is a natural law in the universe we do not know it yet, and probably should not pretend to. The right moral choice is often defined in terms of prevailing moral norms (Alexander & Moore, 2012). In this situation, it is wise to turn back to majority public opinion, which as noted is in support of same sex marriage and among the leaders of the future is strongly in support of it. If the majority finds no moral qualm, then the nation as a whole should not find moral qualm. Even among those who oppose same sex marriage, they based their morals on the assumption that God finds it objectionable. The reality is that such people know nothing of God's will and are only guessing -- their stance is their own personal one to which they are attempting to lend credence by borrowing God's name.

The United States also takes the view that personal freedom is an imperative of American society, and by extended personal freedoms society will flourish. Restrictions on gay marriage are just that -- restrictions -- and the categorical imperative of the American government is that personal freedom should be enhanced where possible, provided it does not infringe on the freedoms of others. In the case of same sex marriage, restricting the freedom of a subset of Americans runs counter to the categorical imperative of the preservation of freedom that sits at the core of American values.

Moral Arguments

Even if one accepts the tenuous proposition that the Bible -- or any other holy book for that matter -- takes a stance on gay marriage, the moral case stands strongly in favor of legalizing gay marriage. The United States is a nation based on rights, and these rights are to be applied universally to all adults. This sets a standard of morality that is civilian in nature, as was the intent of the founding fathers. Religious arguments, therefore, have no place in public discourse -- the United States is not a theocracy. The morals by which this country operates are clear that all adults are to be treated equally. When the laws did not match this moral imperative, the laws were forced to be changed and society changed along with these laws. Women were allowed to vote, African-Americans saw the systemic discrimination against them reduced over a succession of steps. The singling out of homosexuals for special, punitive legal treatment on the basis of their sexual habits is a perversion of the morals on which the United States was founded.

Even if the public, moral argument is based on religion, to take a singular interpretation of a holy book without considering the book's teachings in a holistic manner is little more than selection bias. The Bible also teaches people to love their neighbor, and that God will judge. For the people to fail to love their neighbor, and to place themselves in a role that the Bible reserves for God is repugnant, and blasphemous. The founding fathers wanted the U.S. To be a secular society specifically because of selective, repugnant, irrational perversions of Biblical teaching.

Legal Arguments

The issue of same sex marriage is an active political topic in the United States. At the state level, many states are already allowing same sex marriage, some by referendum and others through the work of legislators (Honan, 2013). There are even arguments to protect those who stand opposed to same sex marriage of having their names in public (Canfield, 2013). Indeed, most opponents of same sex marriage lack the courage of their beliefs to use their real names, like this collection of weak arguments against same sex marriage (TFP, 2013).

The Supreme Court of the United States is presently deliberating the issue, and is expected to render a decision in June. It is not known how the court will vote on the issue before it, but legally it would seem that the Constitution would have no reason to ban same sex marriage. Indeed, laws were written mostly at a time when the issue was not considered to be an issue. All over the world, as nations realize that their laws need to be clarified, they make those changes. Many states have already taken this approach, writing laws to explicitly permit same sex marriage in order to keep their laws in line with Constitutions and in line with moral and ethical norms.

Conclusion

Same sex marriage should be legalized in the United States, at the federal level. The United States is a nation that is designed on the supremacy of personal freedom, and the current laws restrict personal freedom for nobody's gain but to the detriment of a significant portion of the population. Moreover, the moral case against same sex marriage holds no water. The morals of a country are defined by its citizens, and in the United States the majority of the people support same sex marriage. Further, there are no negative consequences -- aside from childish hurt feelings -- to anybody if same sex marriage is legalized.

The ethical case for same sex marriage is also sound. Deontology focuses on the imperative to preserve individual freedoms as the basis for a successful society; utilitarian arguments point out that legalizing same sex marriage provides the greatest positive outcomes for the greatest number. For a few superstitious types and elderly cranks out of touch with today's America to stand in opposition to same sex marriage, when it would not cause them any harm, means that they are undertaking a highly unethical and immoral course of action where they are harming people in a punitive fashion for no purpose other than the fact that they can. Such unethical positions cannot be supported, and should be combatted. The best way to implement moral, legal and ethical policy in the U.S. is to legalize same sex marriage at the federal level.

Works Cited:

Alexander, L. & Moore, M. (2012). Deontological ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved April 14, 2013 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/