Same Sex Marriages the Institution

Same Sex Marriages

The institution of marriage has changed throughout history to reflect the evolution of society. For example, it was only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the United States and it was only after a Supreme Court decision in 1967 that mixed race couples could marry anywhere in this country (Same-sex marriages (SSM) & civil unions). but, today, society remains resistant to embracing marriages by same-sex couples. Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriage and same-sex couples were able to obtain marriage licenses in San Francisco and in various towns in New Mexico and New York for short intervals of time during 2004, but were not able to officially register their marriages (Same-sex marriages (SSM) & civil unions). Like earlier marriage prohibitions, opposition to same-sex marriages must be overcome by developing new definitions of marriage and by dispelling stereotypes that impede change.

Opposition to same-sex marriages is largely based on personal opinions of what marriage ought to be. Most notably, those against same-sex marriage define marriage as the union of two sexes, not the union of two people (Knight). They believe that giving homosexuals the right to marry would not merely expand this definition of marriage; instead, it would destroy it. The reasoning behind this belief is that homosexual relationships lack the permanence and fidelity to fit the marriage model of fidelity and a lifetime bond. Thus, the opposition fears that society's expectations of marriage will change if homosexual are allowed to marry, further weakening the institution of marriage. Once this happens, opponents claim that even broader and more detrimental definitions of marriage will surface.

However, marriage should not be defined as strictly a heterosexual institution because this restriction violates the rights and freedoms of non-heterosexual individuals. Just because marriage has traditionally been a heterosexual institution, traditions must and do change with time. For example, slavery was once and accepted institution, but was abolished as society realized that it was morally wrong. The slippery slope argument that same-sex marriages open the door for other types of marriages is just a classic scare tactic that builds on prejudice and fear to make the change in marriage tradition so scary and horrible that the first step will never be taken (Lesbian and gay marriages). Those opposed to same-sex marriages attack gays and lesbians for lacking permanence and fidelity when divorce rates in heterosexual marriages were well above forty percent throughout the 1990s (Divorce rates).

Opponents of same-sex marriage fear gay parenting for many reasons. Many believe that the family structure that helps the child the most is a family headed by two biological parents. One rationale given is that children need same-sex role models to teach them how to behave as a man or as a woman (Knight). Opponents of same-sex marriage also claim that children raised by homosexuals are more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often (Knight). Indirectly, opponents go on to say that gay marriage will encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to become victims of suicide, depression, drug abuse, and sexually transmitted diseases (Benne and McDermott, 2004).