Should Gay Marriage be Banned?

Should There Be A Constitutional                        Amendment Banning Gay                Marriage?





         America, flouted for being “the land of the free”, home of equality, where



“all men are created equal”, has a long history of attaching stipulations on just



whom exactly these “basic” rights and liberties apply to. We are a liberal society in



many regards, with social reform and the well being of the common man among



our top goals as a nation, as can be seen by sweeping movements to promote racial



and gender based equality throughout the country over the course of the last



century. Yet we a re also a nation that is quick to pick out a minority, ostracize it to



the point of shame, and, no matter how much support that group is given, no matter



how hard it fights, we dehumanize it until we are ready to move on to the next



group. For example, racial and religious minorities have been prejudiced against



throughout our entire history as a nation, with the most recent focus being on



Muslim people hailing from the Middle East. Women have been subject to the



same, and although much has gone into the way of reform, the fact of the matter is



that women still, on average, make only 74% of the income for the same work as



men (Slate Magazine, 4/1999). Most recently, however, the brunt of the focus has



fallen onto the homosexual community. They have fallen victim to the same



torment and ridicule, hate crimes, intolerance, and violent extremes that so many



others have in the past, and continue to now.  These are people merely trying to



live out their rights, especially the right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of



Happiness”. Whatever ones personal views of the matter be, especially in regards



to any moral implications, which this paper will return to later, the simple truth is



that a homosexual man or woman is still a person, a normal human being, and an



American citizen, with the same rights and capacities as any other citizen.



         Should there be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? The



mere thought of such restricting and biased legislation threatens to shard my



already bruised and tattered faith in the workings of our American system.



Marriage is such a simple and expected right, and so much more; it is a legalized



bonding, a pinnacled tradition of civilization itself, and yet it offers no major



significance that can not be obtained through other means. Views such as



“...[homosexuals] only want to get married for the tax break...”(taken from an



anonymous survey I conducted for the purposes of this paper) are completely



unfounded, as a civil union, which is open and legal in most areas to the gay



community, provides those same exact tax deductions. Marriage is simply a



“...means for [gays] to feel less estranged from the world. There is nothing wrong



with them, they’re... just trying to fit in...[and] feel less out of place in



society...”(same survey).



         In May 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriage, a



brave and noble step towards equality. One of the few stipulations is that this



privilege extends only to residents of that state, a matter which is currently heavily



in dispute, and that I will return to later. So why has there been so much resistance



to this simple act? Why have not the majority of the states allowed for the same (in



fact, forty one states have passed laws banning marriage to homosexual couples).



Why should there not be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? The



answer to the first to questions comes down to the issue of our national conception



of morality. The conservative public, as well as the narrow majority of the



individuals I surveyed for this paper (11 out of twenty), see cause for concern in



the apparent moral implications of the issue. But is there truly anything immoral



about the act, practice, or lifestyle of homosexuality? And if there is, does it



honestly have an impact on the lives of those who oppose it? Just a few decades



ago, inter-racial marriage was considered immoral. Divorce and remarriage were



once considered immoral. Premarital relations, sans-marriage child raising, and



couples without children were too all once considered, by majority opinion, to be



immoral. Now they are all common, everyday accepted events and happenings,



which barely warrant a second glance. It is of some comfort to me that some day,



this (gay marriage) too will be considered the same. Some people bring up the



point of “the sanctity of marriage”, and how homosexuality threatens it. My



response to this argument is simple: take a look at modern marriage. Divorce rates



are approaching fifty percent across the nation. While I do not view anything with



this as being wrong (my parents are divorced), it does lead one to question this



sanctity. Also, with that in mind, in regards to the sanctity of marriage,



Massachusetts, which allows gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the



nation. Texas on the other hand, which is vehemently opposed to gay marriage, has



a divorce rate over seventy times greater than that of Massachusetts (Whitehead,



Popenoe.  “The State of Our Unions”, 2004.Rutgers University, National



Marriage Project.). Moral issues and sanctity? Enough said. Lastly, why should



there not be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Such an act would



be far too lengthy to enact, create a massive political schism among the American



people, and is all in all unnecessary. Only twenty seven times have we amended



the constitution(including the passing and cancellation of prohibition). It is not a



very easy process to do, being very time consuming and with a negligible chance



of success from the start. In fact, I sincerely doubt there ever will be such



legislation passed, just due to the inherent hardships it would entail.



         Despite the fact that I wish I could be optimistic about this issue, I am forced



instead to be realistic. Gay marriage is illegal in most areas, however, it is allowed



in some. As I mentioned Massachusetts is currently facing legal pressure to allow



homosexuals from other states to marry within the state, without having residency



(CNN.com, 10/7/2005.). While in any other situation this would not pose a



problem, Massachusetts does not want to allow this, since the state government



feels it would be flaunting itself upon the ideals of other states, and would not be



giving them their due respect. While I don’t agree with this position, I do see the



necessity of it. I feel that for the time being an unfortunate compromise should be



made: if (any) couple wants to marry under State Representation (i.e. magistrate,



or any government/ non-religiously affiliated official who would perform the



ceremony) there should be a reasonable time (no greater than three months) spent



living within that state in order to claim citizenship status (the same system used



for state colleges etc.). While not the most convenient of compromises, this is an



issue that will be best dealt with through time, rather than sudden impact. And, as I



mentioned earlier, gay couples do have the option of civil union open to them, with



marriage being more of a motion than anything, which more than proves in my



eyes the sincerity of the cause.