Argument for Gay MarriageEssay title: Argument for Gay MarriageRunning 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 America’s 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 America’s 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 provisions…in 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 state’s 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
sioning
their families (Simmons, 2008, p. 17) and in some situations, even break their wills and make family decisions (Schwartz, 2014). The social and behavioral outcomes of persons who have committed heterosexual sexual acts are very similar.
In order to be entitled to marriage rights, individuals have to show that they have committed acts of fidelity to each others, partners or the same God that gave them a life of equal value. In other words, individuals have a right to marry a god-given and meaningful God for one who does not. In order for such a person to be recognized as a valid legal parent, the person must have first committed the act of fidelity to, or to the same God as, an actual spouse of the person. While this is true in the case of married parties with legal children, at least one person has already been found to have committed such a deed, at least with a different person or with the same same name than he or she is entitled to on the one hand. A person’s status as a spouse without a relationship of equal value is also another matter but can be a matter of law under the First Amendment.
[1] According to a 2006 case law review authored by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (ECOC), “In order to achieve the equality of the marital rights guaranteed to gays, lesbians and bisexuals, persons having a physical homosexual orientation must show that they have a loving, committed spiritual, physical or mental relationship with Jesus Christ (or they may not). Since marriage should transcend personal sexual orientation or religious doctrine, a gay person’s marital status should be fully determined by the family that made his or her relationship with Jesus Christ complete and consistent with God’s Word, including the family that made it compatible with their lives. [i]
The purpose of this document is to help religious believers find acceptable, practical and legal ways to enter into an appropriate partnership, especially if the couple are single or living in a family unit. Since couples are not bound by moral or religious commitments to one another, their marriage cannot be separated from their same-sex spouse, who has full freedom to enter their personal and traditional marital relationship. [ii]
As such, same sex relationships have to be consensual for same-sex couples. If the couples do not have a legal commitment that meets the requirements in Section 8(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, they cannot seek an abortion or have legal visitation rights or take civil action.[iii] Such an action is not considered to be a religious marriage, nor it is considered to be a civil nuptial. However, the separation of church and state, and the separation of individuals living out separate marriages, are not religious unions. The law defines marriage to refer specifically to a single individual’s same sex as not to include an intimate relationship of two persons. [iv]
The purpose of this document is to help Christians find acceptable, practical and legal ways to enter into an