The issue of gay marriage has been a hotly contended debate in the last few years and has had a significant impact on this past election. The right-wing Christian conservatives insist that homosexuality is morally wrong while gay advocates argue that they deserve the same civil rights that heterosexual couples enjoy. I will discuss the issue of gay marriage from a conservative as well as liberal viewpoint but first we must look at the history of homosexuality in order to be able to understand the controversy behind this debate.
The practice of homosexuality is not one that has recently developed, but rather, it has been around since the ancient cultures of Greece and Rome. Although the term homosexuality did not exist until 1869, the practice of it in ancient cultures was considered be to a normal part of life. Many famous Greek philosophers of the time had male partners as well as their wives. Such men were Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. It was common practice for a male to take on a young boy as his lover until he reached maturity where he would, in turn, take on another young boy as his lover. In Roman society, the emperor himself married his male lover. Likewise, some Native-Americans in North America chose the “Berdache” lifestyle where men dressed as women and dated other men and women dressed as men and dated other women. This practice was less stigmatized because these couples had the appearance of heterosexuality. In many cultures in New Guinea and Africa, it was common practice for men to inseminate young boys at puberty so they could become men in their sexuality. (Mondimore, 1996)
As you can see, the practice of homosexuality has not always been stigmatized but rather, has been widely accepted in many cultures as a normal part of life. So when did it become so stigmatized? Many other countries in the world such as the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, and Denmark have already legalized same-sex marriages. One of the most prominent reasons for the stigmatizing of gay and lesbian relationships is fear. The heterosexual world does not understand this practice and so are afraid of the effects the change might have.
Opponents of same-sex marriage seem to be winning the battle, at least for now. Preliminary rulings in the ’90s in Hawaii and Alaska, seemed to illegalize a ban on same-sex marriage, however, ratification of state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage ended the short-term victory. (http://www.aclusandiego.org/samesex.htm) In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which declared that states did not have to recognize any same-sex marriages that may be legalized in other states and defined marriage as between one man and one woman, effectively eliminating any federal benefits for homosexual couples. (Issues, 2004) The final blow came during the hard fought election 2004. 13 states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and nine out of these 13 also banned other forms of partner recognition. (www.thetaskforce.org) It seems as though gay rights groups are losing the battle.
While the gay liberation movement has lost some hard battles they have also had their share of victories. With Vermont allowing civil unions in 1999 and the temporary issuance of marriage licenses in cities in California, New Mexico, and New York in 2004, the move toward gay marriage seems to be picking up. The first major victory was the decision in Massachusetts in February of 2004 to legalize same-sex marriage. Massachusetts is the first state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage, giving hope to gay rights advocates all over the U.S. In a March 14th court decision in California, a San Francisco County Superior Court Judge ruled that “”while withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians has been the status quo, it constitutes discrimination the state can no longer justify.” (The Muskegon Chronicle, 3/15/05) This is another important decision in the fight for gay marriage equality.
Advocates of same-sex marriage say that denying them the right to marry is to deny them their basic civil rights. By denying them legal status, they are denied access to state as well as federal benefits such as healthcare, hospital visitation rights, social security benefits, and joint taxes. Gay and lesbian couples do not just want the benefits of marriage; they also want the recognition of their love that only a marriage can give. Opponents state that homosexual relationships are inherently unstable due to promiscuity so allowing them to marry would not only increase the divorce rate, but also, ruin the long tradition and honor of the institution of marriage. Advocates counter that argument by stating that allowing them to marry would strengthen their relationships and provide them with legal and economic security. (Issues, 2004)
Opponents also argue that the purpose of marriage is procreation. Since homosexuals are unable to procreate they should not be allowed to marry. Similarly, opponents argue that homosexuals are not fit to be parents even if they adopt and that a traditional heterosexual household is the best in which to raise children. They believe that because homosexual relationships are so unstable they cannot provide children with the security they need. Supporters say that studies have shown that there are no differences between children raised by homosexual couples or heterosexual couples. Furthermore, supporters note that adoption by homosexuals is not only allowed but often encouraged. The states are saying that it is permissible for homosexual couples to adopt children but that they just cannot let them marry. Seems like a contradiction on the state’s part. (Issues, 2004)
Opponents of same-sex marriage seem to be concerned about the long tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman. Many opponents of same-sex marriage say that they are not against benefits for same-sex couples but believe the institution of marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. Otherwise, they argue, it could lead to all sorts of other undesirable marriages such as polygamy, incest, and bestiality. (Seidman, 2003) Proponents argue that legalizing homosexual marriage will have no effect on heterosexual marriage. Married homosexual couples will buy a house, raise their children, and argue over who does the dishes just like heterosexual couples do. Likewise, many religious organizations fear that the legalization will lead to rampant immoral behavior. They say the bible condemns homosexuality and sites Leviticus, 18:22 as its evidence: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Issues, 2004) Advocates say that Jesus himself has never said anything against homosexuality.
Similar to the fear of changing the institution of marriage, opponents of same-sex marriage fear the changing of gender roles and a confusion of the biological need for two different sexes. In a homosexual relationship, at times, gender roles either do not exist or are unclear. Each partner takes on a share of the duties, paying no attention to what society deems “woman’s work” or masculine tasks. This confusion of traditional gender roles and the biological differences that go with gender, gives the impression that the sexes do not need each other thus threatening the institution of marriage altogether. (Mondimore, 1996)
The institution of marriage has not been unchanged since it was created. Prior to the American Civil War, African-Americans were not allowed to marry at all but gained that right after the war was over. Interracial couples only gained the right to marry in 1967. With the recent court decision in Massachusetts, same-sex couples were allowed to marry. (www.religioustolerance.org) As you can see, the institution of marriage has been steadily changing for over a century and a half so why can’t it change a little more to allow all same-sex couples to marry and be recognized all over the United States? When looking into history you can see that every oppressed group, poor white men, blacks, and women, have all eventually achieved their civil rights. It is only a matter of time before homosexual couples gain the right to marry. Until then, this will remain a heated and controversial debate that will rage for years to come. Until then, this will be an issue that will be debated in American public policy, decide the outcome of elections, and be discussed in classrooms all over the United States.
In my opinion, the question to be debated is not whether or not homosexual couples should be able to marry but when. This country is founded upon equality of human beings and should not discriminate on the basis of who you have in your bed at night. Homosexuality is not a choice, it is a natural part of these people and to be able to pursue happiness, as the Declaration of Independence states is a right, you cannot deny who you are. You cannot and should not have to hide who you are in America. It is supposed to be the land of the free, well at least for anyone who sleeps with the opposite sex. The idea that homosexuals are bad parents is ridiculous. From birth I was raised by a homosexual man. While he was living the heterosexual lifestyle until I was 12, he was still, inherently, a homosexual. At age 16 I moved in with him and have been living with him ever since. I am not messed up in any way, I attend school, to go work, and hang out with friends just as any child raised by heterosexuals does. The idea that homosexual couples only raise homosexual children is stupid too, I’m straight, and I know for a fact that heterosexual couples don’t only raise heterosexual children! I understand the reasons why some people don’t want gays to marry but it is no justification for denying them the same civil rights that heterosexuals enjoy. In America, all men are supposed to be created equal. When that happens, when gays are allowed to marry, when blacks are no longer discriminated against, and when women make the same amount of money that men do, then America will truly be the land of the free. Based on the fact that every oppressed group has eventually achieved their civil rights, I believe that eventually homosexual couples will be allowed to marry. Until then, it will be a furious debate between the conservative right and the gay rights advocates.
