Homosexuals should be allowed to marry because the disallowance of it violates their constitutional rights. Marriage is an institution long recognized by our government under the right to pursue happiness, and denying that right to any couple, regardless of gender, is unconstitutional. This argument, though, is not disputed. In fact, none of the arguments raised in opposition to the allowance of homosexual marriages takes into account the constitutional rights afforded to all humans. The arguments are only in relation to the possible repercussions (real or imagined) of granting these rights. Our nation was built and has always been based on the fundamental principles of freedom expressed in the Declaration of Independence and through our Constitution. The opponents of homosexual marriage need to remember what freedom means to America, and understand the significance of setting a precedent that denies that freedom.
The Supreme Court has long recognized that the institution of marriage is one of the rights guaranteed to all Americans by our Constitution. In the case of Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court said, ?The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men? (Howard Zinn, 397). In the case of Cleveland Bard of Education vs. LaFleur, the Supreme Court said, ?This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? (?The Supreme Court Hands Gays a Win?). Despite all this, heterosexuals are the only ones allowed to be married at this time.
Homosexuals and heterosexual both live under the same constitution and therefore should both be afforded the same rights. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
The reasons that are presented against the allowance of homosexual marriage are flimsy, and have nothing to do with the constitutional rights that should be afforded to all Americans. Some of these arguments are that marriage is for procreation, same-sex couples aren?t the optimum environment in which to raise children, gay relationships are immoral, marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species, and that same-sex marriages would start America down a slippery slope towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, and other kinds of horrible consequences (Steve Chapman).
These reasons against gay marriage only deal with the consequences of what may happen if this is allowed. It is all speculation and has nothing to do with what is already a constitutional right. These same arguments were also offered thirty years ago towards interracial marriages. Journalist Deb Price offers this, ?..all (arguments) seem to echo the debates heard in the late 1960?s when the morality of racially mixed marriages was being debated. One only needs to change a few words in the present day arguments against gays and lesbian marriage in order to produce replicas of those earlier racist statements.?
The main argument against same-sex marriages is the religious argument that God doesn?t condone homosexuality. In Leviticus 20:13 of the Bible, it reads that, ?If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood upon them.? Since marriage is considered by the Church to be a covenant with God, the view in the church is that homosexual marriages cannot be allowed (Robert B. Marks Ridinger).
The First Amendment states, ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?? (Eric Black). This is saying that religious grounds cannot determine constitutional law. However, this amendment is also saying that once homosexual marriages are allowed by the state, the Church can continue denying them. There are many churches though that allow homosexuals to be married and this is where these people would have to go.
Arguments that deal with how homosexual marriages will affect children is a very touch subject. The argument is that children of same-sex marriages will suffer psychological problems, as evidenced by the children now who are suffering psychological effects because of family breakups and single-sex parenting (?Kids With Gay Parents?).
The problem is not with single-sex parenting but with single parenting. An internet article, ?Kids With Gay Parents?, says that, ??various studies of families with same-sex and opposite sex parents?showed that genders of the parents are unimportant to the quality of child-rearing, but that family breakdowns are very harmful to children.? Under these grounds, these studies could actually be used to support the homosexual position in that a committed homosexual relationship would be more stable for a child than an unstable heterosexual relationship.
Our great country would not exist today if our forefathers had not signed the Declaration of Independence and braved the repercussions of it. The signing of such a monumental document ensured that all Americans be entitled to certain rights. As
stronger for them, children are stronger for them, the working class is stronger for them, so the why shouldn?t homosexuals be stronger for them. This is a nation that has faced huge amounts of internal prejudice and misconception. Following the Constitution of the United States is what gave America the strength to pull through those rough times and strive for a brighter day when all are viewed on as equal. Homosexuals deserve to be treated equal, and they deserve to have the right to get married.
(contact me if you have any questions)
I have a hard copy of my works cited page and I don’t feel like typing it in. If you really need, e-mail me and I’ll send it to you.