An Argument For Gay MarriageEssay Preview: An Argument For Gay MarriageReport this essayRunning head: ARGUMENT FOR GAY MARRIAGEAn Argument for Gay MarriageKristina ThielenFriends UniversityAbstractThe premise of this paper is to prove that solid reasoning for denial of gay marriage is currently absent, and that legalization would provide much-needed equality to these unions. Arguments discussed include the “special rights” argument, the financial cost of legalizing same-sex marriage, the social belief that such marriages are “inherently wrong” or contradictory to Americas Judeo-Christian foundation, and the conviction that legalizing same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage itself. The work concludes that that there is no demonstrable validity to the most commonly used arguments against gay marriage, and that denial of the right for homosexuals to marry constitutes discrimination.
An Argument for Gay MarriageCivil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. (Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, 2003, para. 34)
If marriage is such a soulful, binding occurrence, why would American society choose to deny a segment of the population the right to experience it? That question is central to the debate of gay marriage. Some opponents use the argument that granting gays the right to marry is a “special right,” or that the financial cost of gay marriage benefits to the United States government and to businesses is prohibitive. Others espouse the position that gay marriage is just inherently wrong. Still others argue that same-sex couples bid for legal marriage actually threatens the institution of marriage itself, and is contradictory to Americas Judeo-Christian roots. All of these arguments are based upon dubious evidence and personal fears. Absent solid reasoning for denial, gay marriage should be legalized to provide equality to these unions.
The “special right” argument consists of the erroneous belief that granting the minority a right that the majority already has access to is a “special right.” The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the entire population starts out with equal rights, and it follows that any further rights granted to gays must then be “special” (Bidstrup, 2004, para. 30).
In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21 of the same year. DOMA provides that each state may deny Constitutional marital rights to same sex couples who have been married in other states. It also defines marriage, for purposes of federal law, as “a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife” (as cited in Wikipedia, 2006a, para. 1). The Federal government recognized in a 1997 memorandum that there are approximately one thousand forty-nine federal laws in which marital status is a feature (United States Government Accounting Office [USGAO], 1997, p. 2). In a 2004 update to that memorandum, the USGAO identified eighty-nine additional laws involving marital status, for a grand total of one thousand one hundred thirty-eight “federal statutory provisionsin which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges” (p. 1). Not to be forgotten are the approximately four hundred individual states rights awarded to married couples in the United States (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance [OCRT], 2001, para 3).
Of those state and federal rights, three of the most important are decision-making powers in the event of medical emergency or death, civil rights and judicial protections, and the financial benefits of legally recognized relationships. As an example, the legal rights guaranteed to heterosexual married couples in medical emergencies or after a death are not guaranteed to homosexual partners (Kaye, 2006, para. 18). Anecdotal evidence abounds in the form of stories of estranged families who step in and take over medical decisions after an illness, injury or accident. While married couples enjoy guaranteed hospital visitation rights, homophobic medical personnel, uninformed hospital regulations, and hostile families can prevent homosexual partners from even visiting their loved one in the hospital (Bidstrup, 2004, para. 51). Often, these hostile families will totally ignore the surviving partners wishes regarding the treatment of the injured or deceased person, and in court have succeeded in negating powers of attorney previously executed. The website of The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (2001) explains that in the event of a death, a surviving homosexual partner can also be prevented from participating in the planning of the funeral, to the extent of being excluded from the ceremony itself. An estranged or hostile family may additionally take possession of previously shared property after a death, sometimes in direct defiance of legal documentation (para. 3). S. Bidstrup (2004), gay rights activist, notes, “There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights” (para. 52).
Not only does a legal marriage come into play during medical crises, it can affect basic civil rights and judicial protections. For instance, in federal assistance programs such as Food Stamps, Social Security Survivors Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income, benefit levels are dependent upon whether the applicant has an “eligible spouse” (USGAO, 1997, Enclosure 1, p. 1). Whats more, since homosexual couples cannot be “married,” there are no laws protecting either partner in the event of dissolution of a relationship. The laws that married couples must comply with in these circumstances include community property laws, domestic violence protections, and child support enforcement (OCRT, 2001, para. 3). Under other denied judicial protections, homosexual partners can be compelled to testify against their partner in court, while married couples cannot. Although a partners
in a civil divorce are able to seek relief from such an ex-spouse, they are also not able to take full advantage of marital rights to assert their rights before a judicial system, such as the U.S. Supreme Court. For instance, in this case, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the state’s state law against forced testimony in civil lawsuits on grounds of equal constitutional rights before state or local courts. Because this is a federal court-mandated process, state courts have, and continue to, refuse to enforce the federal government’s laws against discrimination against same-sex marriages in the state of New Mexico.
Mentally and Socioeconomically Unconscious, People With Low, Normal Lifestyles
While some people believe that some people with lower or no income or other living standards have an obligation to do something about their financial situation, such as to take care of them, others are simply unable to. A number of states have passed and/or adopted laws that would mandate and ensure that a person with a low, normal income, cannot legally and financially support themselves if they’re unable to manage their personal needs; as a result, even when that can be achieved, many individuals who are unable to live reasonably comfortably, and in many situations unable to care for themselves, may still find themselves on the economic rolls. Despite this, many people living in poverty, under legal obligation, are unable with the best interests of others at heart to provide the necessities of life they are currently entitled to. Some situations with lower standard of living may result in poor mental fitness and/or behavioral problems (Coupling, 2000). Also, as in any social or economic situation, there are some people who may feel compelled to live in poverty, while some may not. A number of persons with low, normal income would generally be able to meet their individual needs without having to do their work to fulfill their obligations, even if that person’s situation has been reduced dramatically. Those who are able to meet these conditions, though, continue to struggle financially, and may even decide to continue living on the streets, even if they are unable to live a full life (Byrne & Co., 2004, p. 1472).
Individuals with a low, normal income also should consider purchasing a home. However to buy a home is to make a financial sacrifice in some way, and these sacrifices might lead to financial hardship for the family member or their business partners and family friends. For instance, a family member or partner wishing to purchase a home can obtain a financial hardship grant to take into consideration all the financial requirements and to obtain an economic hardship grant to take into consideration all the other costs, even before the financial hardship.
Sustainable living is defined as spending money to support and improve their quality of life by providing a lifestyle program for the family member or their family/business partners that works toward the needs of those with low, normal income. A family member’s standard of living can then be raised based on what the partner or their business partners require. This can include helping to support the partners in their own household (for example, as a caregiver) while they live in an assisted living facility (such as a homeless shelter), caring for the household (such as as a small business owner) and taking care of the house (such as as a home care provider). Another option available to an individual with low, normal income is a “no-cash” or “zero-cash” living arrangement (Nolant, 1994). This means that any financial assistance or