Freedom of Marriage

Rebecca Derby
Ms. McMahan Room 508
AP III Period 3 Odd
13 December 2012
Freedom of Marriage
The reasoning of any just law is meant to be rational and, moreover, fair. However, the government has failed to recognize the rights of many American citizens because they do not conform to society’s stereotypical standards. In a nation founded on freedom, have today’s citizens evolved into narrow-minded drones that bind minorities into what they believe are the “correct” moral standards? Have the basic freedoms guaranteed by our forefathers been stripped away in order to protect the strict moral codes society has placed upon itself.
Same-sex marriage should be legal because it is discriminatory to deny homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. The illegalization of same-sex marriage excludes gay couples from the same financial marital benefits guaranteed to married heterosexuals. The denying of these rights is no longer a decision to be made by the U.S. government as religious beliefs are strongly imbedded in the ceremony of marriage. Contrary to common beliefs, the legalization of same-sex marriage has not degraded the traditional values associated with a marriage. The constitutional right of marriage is currently being denied to many American citizens. The actions of many have contributed to discrimination against a minority who deserve their birthright as American citizens to join in homosexual unions.
Exclusion of marital benefits from homosexual couples contributes to the large financial strain of being gay. Taxation relief, family health care benefits, social security spousal benefits, and inheritance rights all lessen the financial burden on married heterosexual couples, but these benefits do not pertain to married homosexuals today. All of these benefits excluding same-sex couples lead to an exponentially higher cost of living. “In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.” (Siegel Bernard, Lieber) The numbers represent the discriminatory effects of illegalizing homosexual marriage. “Same-sex couples, become “strangers” to the basic rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and are at risk for minority stress and its health consequences.” (Riggle, Thomas, Rostosky) In a country founded on equal rights, American laws pertaining to gay marriage necessitate punishment on individuals only seeking to gain a right heterosexuals already have.
Religious beliefs present the most persuasive arguments against the legalization of gay marriage. The majority of religions strictly prohibit the union of homosexual couples as the union supposedly to defile the religious ceremony of marriage. Some may recognize the validity of this argument; however, the U.S. government should not be influenced by this religious defense when considering illegality of homosexual marriage. America was founded on the belief in freedom of religion, which is why 221 years ago the first amendment to the U.S. constitution restricted the government from having any religious affiliations. The amendment stands today as the overpowering counterpoint against illegalization of gay marriage due to religious conflicts. The government does not have the right to illegalize homosexual marriage based solely on religious prohibition of the practice.
Many individuals believe that same-sex marriage will increase the already high divorce rates. This belief is propelled by the misconception that the institution of marriage will be weakened by the allowance of homosexual unions thus increasing leniency of divorce. Allowing same-sex marriage will not impair family values, but will instead generate a new family dynamic. This new model of a family will not affect the traditional aspects of a family; it will simply leave the option of same-sex marriage open. The derogatory affects of same-sex marriage in society are so minimal that, “In Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, the divorce rate has declined by 21 percent and is the lowest in the country by some margin. The state which experienced the highest increase in its divorce rate over the period (Alaska, 17.2 percent) also happens to be the first one to have altered its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage in 1998.” (Silver) Based on these statistics, same-sex marriage will not be detrimental to society.
Those opposing gay marriage often argue that a homosexual couple’s inability to procreate is what makes them ineligible for marriage. It is obvious that is anatomically impossible for homosexual couples to reproduce, leading many to question the purpose of gay marriage if procreation is unfeasible. “Marriage was created to allow society to support heterosexual couples in procreation and society can choose not to give the same benefits to same-sex couples.” (Jacobson) If marriage’s only purpose were to support reproduction, homosexual couples would have essentially no purpose for getting married. However, many successfully married heterosexual couples cannot reproduce because of incurable medical conditions. Without the ability to procreate, they would be fairly denied the right to marriage as well as homosexuals. Therefore, the argument presented is invalid because it does not address all couples without the ability to reproduce.
The illegalization of same-sex marriage is to be determined by the value society places on fairness. Economically homosexual couples should receive the same compensations for being married as heterosexual couples are provided with. The resulting reimbursements would diminish financial struggles many homosexual couples encounter over the course of their lifetime. Spiritually gay couples deserve the right to freely exhibit their sexual desires without any discriminatory actions expressed by religious followers. Furthermore, the government should not consider these religious beliefs when determining the laws restricting one’s one right to participate in a homosexual marriage. Although many believe that the allowance of gay marriage will directly result in higher divorce rates, the freedom to be in a gay marriage has shown no direct correlation to divorce rates in state’s granting gay marriage. The illegalization of gay marriage is discriminatory against a minority of American citizens whose only desire is to be given the same rights as heterosexuals. The prejudice opinions opposing gay couples must be set aside in order for homosexuals to receive the benefits they fairly deserve.

Derby