|
29 Nov. 1999 Same Sex Marriage, Acceptance in the United States Marriage is
much more than merely a commitment to love one another. Marriage entitles
financial responsibility, as well as authorized financial benefits. It is the
institution that provides automatic legal protection for the spouse, including
medical visitation, inheritance of a deceased spouse's property, as well as
pension and other rights. Society has become accustom to what they believe is
“normal” by their traditions and religious beliefs. Many people believe that
same-sex marriage is not “normal.” The simple fact is that banning same-sex
marriage is discrimination. Marriage is the basic human right that should not be
denied to anyone. Marriage among minorities has come a long way in becoming
accepted as “normal” in the eyes of society. Interracial marriage was
prohibited, and unacceptable in the United States, until the Supreme Court ruled
such bans unconstitutional in 1967.
There is no reason that the federal
government, or anyone for that matter, should restrict marriage to a predefined
heterosexual relationship. Because it is the right of the homosexual legally,
socially, and economically, matrimony between lesbian and gay couples should be
accepted in the United States. Because our country has been founded on the
Constitution, in which all men are created equal; we cannot deny the basic human
and legal right of marriage to a class of individuals due to their sexual
preference. Banning same-sex marriage has already been declared a violation of
the constitution in the state of Hawaii. The case began in 1991 when three
same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses, by the Hawaii Department
of Health, brought a lawsuit to the state court against the director of the
department. Hawaii law required couples wishing to marry Ramirez 2 to obtain a
marriage license.
New York Times reporter David Dunlap notes that while the
marriage license did not explicitly prohibit same sex marriage at that time, it
used terms of gender that clearly indicated that only heterosexual couples could
marry.... In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that a refusal to grant
marriage licenses violated the state constitution (18). Even though the court
found that the state of Hawaii’s constitution had discriminated against
homosexuals, which should legalize marriage nationally, presently there have
been no same-sex marriage license that have been issued anywhere in the United
States. Conversely, an Online US News columnist acknowledges that one state
court should not dictate marriage laws for the entire nation: If gay marriages
become legal in Hawaii, other states may have to recognize them, as well,
because the U.S. Constitution requires each state to grant “full faith and
credit” to the acts of other states.
But, he argues, many states do not want to
recognize same-sex unions, and should not be forced to do so by a few judges in
Hawaii. The bill [allowing other states to ban same sex-unions] introduced in
congress would preserve the right of the other 49 states to determine their
marriage laws.(“Pros and Cons of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage”) Although some
may believe it would be unfair for Hawaii to begin the process of recognizing
same-sex marriage licenses, Article IV, Section One of the United States
Constitution avers, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the
public acts, records and proceedings of every other state”(Madison et al.).
Therefore, regardless of whether or not certain individuals believe it is fair
for one state to begin the process of same-sex marriage, the law is the law.
Similarly, lawyers specializing in the constitutional and civil rights laws said
the legislation could be fought in two ways: either by arguing that same-sex
marriages must be allowed to “full faith and credit” clause requiring states to
recognize the laws of other states (Roane 7).
The Ramirez 3 case is very similar
to the ban of interracial marriage, which was declared unconstitutional just a
few decades ago by the Supreme Court. Interracial marriage was struck down as a
violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all persons the equal
protection of the laws. Even though marriage should not be denied legally to gay
and lesbian couples, matrimony between same-sex couples should be accepted
socially. Andrew Sulivan, a former editor for the New Republic magazine
comments; Homosexuals are in many ways your sons and daughters, your mothers and
fathers, your uncles and aunts, people in your families, human beings.
Homosexual marriage is really the case for heterosexual marriage. We grow up; we
fall in love; and if we’re really lucky, we want to marry the person we love and
live with them in fidelity, and monogamy, and commitment for the rest of our
lives.
It’s a day that all of us, from the moment we grow up, look forward to.
But for one group of Americans, it is denied. The question is not, why would we
want to marry? Why would any human being want to marry? The question really is:
why would anyone want to deny this basic human thing to a group of people in our
society who wish no one any harm, but wish to affirm the values of commitment
and fidelity that every other American takes for granted. (1) Homosexual couples
are not asking for anything more than the opportunity, the chance, the free will
of marrying whom they wish as heterosexuals do. This is an act that is better
for the well being of that individual, this is their pursuit of happiness. What
would happen if homosexuals tried to make themselves “normal” in the eyes of
society? There would be homosexuals living a lie, forcing themselves into a
marriage of the opposite sex, to satisfy society. What would happen when the
spouse found out that their husband or wife was actually gay?
|
