Why Homosexuals Deserve an Equal Opportunity to Marriage

Why Homosexuals Deserve an Equal Opportunity to Marriage
Mark Stillion
PHI 103
Instructor: Gloria Zuniga y Postigo
January 27, 2013

Why Homosexuals Deserve an Equal Opportunity to Marriage A very big topic that lingers on the hearts and minds of so many Americans today, on the desks of so many politicians and in so many courtrooms around the country today is gay marriage. There are two very identifiable sides to this debate and both sides have very defendable points of view, which are constantly being publically expressed by radicals and extremist from both sides of the spectrum. My point of views differ from those who believe that gay marriage should remain illegal however, I am going to look at both sides of this huge debate and argue the point that homosexuals should be granted the right to marry whomever they please because it is not only unconstitutional, but unjust and logically improper to forfeit to this group of people the same, equal rights to marriage as heterosexuals simply because of their sexual orientation. Even though in the U.S. Constitution it does not specify anything about marriage whether it is homosexual or heterosexual, the constitution was designed to ensure that a federal government was established and to ensure equal rights to all citizens of the nation. In 1996 the Federal Defense of Marriage Act prevented any states from legalizing gay marriage however that was proven to be unconstitutional because it restricts the states to define marriage and prohibits gay couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. (Lavoie, 2012 Gay Marriage Law…) This all boils down to one underlying statement that many gay rights activist are battling for every day and that is that denying homosexuals the equal right to marry just as their heterosexual counterpart has the right to marry his or her significant other, is unconstitutional discrimination and that by prohibiting such an act to a certain group of people is not only in violation of their constitutional right for equal opportunity to all but also proving to the world that America is in deed still far from being in accordance with the freedoms and rights that we claim to give to our people because clearly we are still discriminating against this group of people without any basis or logical reasoning other than personal religious beliefs. “Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple.” (http://gaymarriage.procon.org/, Gay Marriage) This battle of equal opportunity is not only about having equality but it is more than that. A homosexual individual is forced to pay consequences that a heterosexual individual would not have to otherwise suffer from. As I just quoted, a same-sex couple without marriage benefits would at an estimate incur over $40,000.00 in expenses simply because they do not obtain the same rights as a heterosexual couple. From a utilitarian point of view, which is demonstrated by actions that will be most beneficial for the greatest amount of people possible, this debate has an easy fix. Allowing same sex couples the right to marry their significant other would create a better life for them and bring equality to this group of people without causing any harm or negative drawback to the rest of society. “Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). The main reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that all major religions consider homosexuality a sin; however, the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that a person 's religious views or lack thereof must be protected.” (http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm, Should Same-Sex Marriage be Legalized?) As of November 7, 2012, Gay marriage has been legalized in 9 of the United States. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional. Same-sex couples that are unable to marry accrue more expenses in a lifetime than heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples who can not gain the equal benefits as their heterosexual counterparts are forced to live a life without the ability to partake in and participate in many life events that may take place in their significant others lives. America is supposed to be the land of the free with equality for all. If America is supposed to be and wants to remain the land of freedom and equality for all, then our government should not condemn or restrict any American citizens from marrying the partner of their choice. This argument of mine is not seen the same way through everyone’s eyes however. Not everyone feels so strongly in the defense of the homosexual community. Just as many if not more, marriage protection activists are defending the right to sustain a traditional rule of marriage based off of their personal religious beliefs. The reason I have a problem with this is because these radicals expect all citizens to follow under their belief of a traditional marriage simply because its what they believe in. Our nation is more diverse now than it was a year ago, and then it was more diverse than it was 10 years ago. Our nation is in a constant movement forward towards success and equality for everyone and with that comes new religions and beliefs from other ethnic groups and believers of different faiths. Not everyone in the country is of the same religion nor does everyone hold the same beliefs. To try and condemn a homosexual because he or she wants to enter into a marriage with the person they love and are happy with because of your personal ideology on marriage is the part of this debate that is “unjust”. Opponents of the right for individuals of the same sex to marry say in their defense that the “The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” Once again this claim is leading back to religion and we cannot fall back on religion with this topic because not every religion holds the same beliefs however, this is the leading factor that creates so much controversy on this topic. From the oppositional side of this debate, the marriage protection activist would argue that our government must uphold the traditional form of marriage because it is biblical. That the government must uphold the traditional form of marriage because that is how it has always been. That by changing the law would mean more government spending and a more diverse society. To me, these premises are not logical because they are for the most part all biased and based off of personal ideology and belief. It is offensive to the gay community that heterosexual activists in protest against the homosexual community would first and foremost; allow themselves to believe that sexuality is a choice. I assure you it is not. To believe that any normal human being would choose to be discriminated against, hated, and ridiculed for any reason whatsoever is not only beyond belief but also unintelligent and immature. Gay rights have been an issue for decades and it seems that just in the recent years it has become such an issue that it has turned into a civil rights movement. Civil rights, which are protected, or supposed to be protect by our nations constitution is being tested everyday. Society will never be able to come to the realization and acceptance of the gay community until our government stops making it into such a discriminatory act. There are no negative affect to our society by allowing individuals the freedom to marry whomever they please and when we discriminate against an individual or a group of people off of the basis of our personal religious beliefs, which is the sole defending factor in this debate, negative retaliation will continue to backfire on the government and on society. For the greatest amount of people, it is only equal and civil to allow citizens their right to marry whomever they please, regardless of sex, race, or orientation. “It 's time to remember who 's the boss, time for the states to regain control of a government which thinks the states are subordinate to it.The federal government exists to serve the states, not the other way around. The states have the right and the duty to restrain the federal government. Unfortunately, most state governments don 't seem to understand this” (Michelsen, 2010 The purpose of the Constitution)

REFERENCES
Lavoie, Denise (2012) Gay marriage law heads to appeals court in Mass. Retrieved From: http://search.proquest.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/docview/963362344/13BE4CD96EF3BE6ABE0/20?accountid=32521

Michelsen (2010) Th purpose of the constitution Retrieved From: http://constitutionality.us/TheConstitution.html

ProCon.org. (2013, January 18). Gay Marriage ProCon.org.
Retrieved From http://gaymarriage.procon.org/

References: Lavoie, Denise (2012) Gay marriage law heads to appeals court in Mass. Retrieved From: http://search.proquest.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/docview/963362344/13BE4CD96EF3BE6ABE0/20?accountid=32521 Michelsen (2010) Th purpose of the constitution Retrieved From: http://constitutionality.us/TheConstitution.html ProCon.org. (2013, January 18). Gay Marriage ProCon.org. Retrieved From http://gaymarriage.procon.org/