Equality Not Discrimination

Equality Not Discrimination
Nicole Mehaulic
April 17, 2013
Composition II 102-21325
Position Paper
Baker College of Jackson
Equality Not Discrimination
There are many people that thrive on traditional ways of life. Families that wake up on Christmas morning to open presents, brides that wear their mothers wedding gown to walk down the aisle, or a teenage girl celebrating her sweet sixteen birthday party with family and friends are just a few of the ways that traditions are appreciated. These customs do not remove the freedoms or equality of the general public, nor are they enforcing beliefs on society. On the contrary, the controversial debate of making same sex marriages legal does threaten to inhibit the freedoms and equality of a large segment of the population. Prejudice on the basis of race, religion, gender or place of origin is illegal; however, people suffer discrimination based on their sexual orientation every day with virtually no consequences. The United States Supreme Court should rule to legalize same sex marriages as well as grant homosexual married couples all of the rights that are offered to heterosexual married couples.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits federal recognition and benefits of same sex couples in any of the states where such unions are legal. To date DOMA has been ruled as unconstitutional in four states by the state Supreme Court on the basis that the government could not justify discriminating against gay men and lesbians that are legally married. While this may sound like a victory, it only means that same sex couples who were married in states where it is legal can refer to themselves as married in every state, not merely where the marriage took place. The downside is that these same sex marriages are not entitled to any of the rights or benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. The Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against homosexual couples, preventing equal treatment and should be ruled as unconstitutional for all fifty states (Billitteri, 2013).
The most frequent reason that is stated for only allowing a marriage between a man and a woman is tradition. Using tradition as a basis to continue on a course of action would mean that interracial marriages would still be unlawful, integration would be unheard of, and slavery would be widespread. The majority of Americans will agree that abolishing each of those discriminatory traditions has had a positive effect on society by promoting equality and tolerance of diversity. Legalizing same sex marriages in all states will have the same effect regardless of the initial resistance it is receiving (Olson, 2010).
Many religious groups say that they object to legalizing gay marriage because it interferes with their religious freedoms. Passing legislation that allows gay and lesbian couples to marry will in no way devalue the beliefs of any religion. The same Constitution that gives Americans the right to exercise our individual religious faiths also forbids us from forcing those beliefs on others. In addition, stating religious objections as a reason to deny same sex marriages is not acceptable in any court of law, therefore using those objections as a justification to sign a law into effect is equally unacceptable (Olson, 2010).
Another explanation given from anti-gay marriage supporters is that redefining marriage will increase marital instability which causes harm to spouses and children. The rationale that allowing homosexual marriages will in any way effect heterosexual marriages is struck down by the states that have legalized same sex marriage. There has been no perceptible effect on marriages with opposite sex partners as a result of this legislation. The high divorce rates that currently are recorded from heterosexual married couples does cause long term emotional damage to families and the children that are an outcome of those broken marriages; however divorce is not illegal as a result (Olson, 2010).
In addition to arguing that homosexual marriages will somehow increase marital instability, are the opponents that say that stable family structures are threatened by legalizing same sex marriages. In today’s society children are raised in many different types of families - two parent families, single parent families, blended families, grandparents that take the role of parents, and adoption families. While the goal may be for a child to be raised by their biological parents, it can be achieved by a number of adults that contribute to raising a child in any of those combinations. Ultimately what matters is that the child feel loved, supported, and accepted. Celebrating diversity in all its forms will only serve to benefit in raising children to be better prepared to encounter the world as well as teaching them tolerance and acceptance. Using the rationale that children raised by same sex parents will be at a disadvantage in comparison to heterosexual parents is nullified by the many adults who are the product of homosexual role models that are successful, productive members of society (Billitteri, 2013).
Some people argue that allowing same sex marriages would reduce and devalue the states interest in promoting procreation. The assumption that heterosexual couples would be less interested in getting married and therefore be less motivated to conceive, or conceive fewer children based on legalizing same sex marriages is simply illogical. Likewise, preventing gays and lesbians from marrying will not result in an outbreak of opposite sex partners having children. Proclaiming that denying gay marriage will in some way justify only allowing traditional marriage because the sole purpose for getting married is to bring a child into the world does not explain marriages by the elderly, by people that have no intent of having children, by people that are incarcerated, or by people that cannot physically conceive on their own. Putting a ban on marriage because a state was requiring procreation would be not be constitutional, therefore declaring such a reproduction argument is absurd (Olson, 2010).
No matter how society perceives homosexuality, gays and lesbians are a prevalent part of our daily lives. “They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us (Olson, 2010, para. 21).” By not extending same sex couples the same rights and benefits as are granted to heterosexual couples we are treating them as if their relationships are less precious, less genuine, less enduring, and less cherished. What possible benefit would we have as a society by belittling their relationships and demeaning them as individuals? Doing so will not make heterosexual marriages more meaningful. Denying homosexual marriages will not interfere with the daily life of society as a whole, so there is no reason to continue discrimination against them (Olson, 2010).
The United States has made great strides in eliminating discriminatory traditions and inequalities. Today it would be unthinkable for slavery or segregation to still exist or for it to be illegal for interracial marriages to take place. However, many people try to use the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman to explain why same sex marriages should not be legalized. The Constitution gives Americans the right to exercise our individual religious beliefs as well as be protected from having other beliefs forced on us. Legalizing homosexual marriage will not affect that constitutional right. Declaring that same sex marriages will threaten overall marital stability, or that family structures will be compromised is invalidated by the states that have legalized gay marriage with no discernible effect to opposite sex marriages. The explanation that gay marriages will impede a state’s interest in promoting procreation suggests that fewer heterosexuals will marry or conceive children if homosexual marriage is legalized, which has no basis for justification. Ultimately by not giving gays and lesbians the same rights and benefits as every heterosexual is given we are telling them that they are not valued members of society. As Americans we cannot in good conscience continue to do that (Olson, 2010). References
Billitteri, T. J. (Ed.). (2013, March 15). Gay marriage - will the Supreme Court end curbs on same sex unions? CQ Researcher, 23(11), 257-280.
Olson, T. B. (2010, January 18). The conservative case for gay marriage. Newsweek, p. 48.

References: Billitteri, T. J. (Ed.). (2013, March 15). Gay marriage - will the Supreme Court end curbs on same sex unions? CQ Researcher, 23(11), 257-280. Olson, T. B. (2010, January 18). The conservative case for gay marriage. Newsweek, p. 48.