Same-Sex Marriage: Redefining an Evolving Institution

Introduction: Marriage as an Evolving Institution

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. Yet today, society remained resistant to embracing marriages by same-sex couples. Massachusetts was the only state that allowed 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. Like earlier marriage prohibitions, opposition to same-sex marriage must be overcome by developing new definitions of marriage and by dispelling the stereotypes that impede change.

Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage

Opposition to same-sex marriage 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. 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 required by the marriage model of lifelong commitment. Thus, opponents fear that society's expectations of marriage will change if homosexuals are allowed to marry, further weakening the institution. Once this happens, they claim that even broader and more detrimental definitions of marriage will follow.

Challenging the Heterosexual Definition of Marriage

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 does not mean that tradition is immutable — traditions must and do change with time. For example, slavery was once an accepted institution but was abolished as society recognized that it was morally wrong. The slippery slope argument — that same-sex marriages open the door for other harmful types of marriages — is a classic scare tactic that builds on prejudice and fear, making the prospect of change seem so alarming that the first step is never taken. Furthermore, those opposed to same-sex marriage attack gay and lesbian couples for allegedly lacking permanence and fidelity, yet divorce rates in heterosexual marriages remained well above forty percent throughout the 1990s.

Conclusion: Society Has Changed

With millions of children already living with couples in same-sex relationships, the very thing that opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to prevent has already happened. Gay and lesbian people already live together and raise children across the United States. Society has changed, and the traditional institution of marriage must mirror this new reality. Same-sex marriage represents a natural progression in institutional change — just as marriage and other social institutions have evolved over the course of history.