Commentary: Gay marriage should be legal right
On Tuesday, November 3rd, Maine voted to repeal their same-sex marriage law. This follows last fall’s vote on this issue with Proposition 8 in California, in which a ban on same-sex marriage was approved.
Same-sex marriage is currently only allowed in five states: Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Unfortunately, US citizens have taken it upon themselves to prevent others from sharing the same rights that heterosexual couples already enjoy; this opposition baffles me.
For starters, it seems that the attempt to stop same-sex marriage is futile, and I do not see how it could be stopped from becoming an American constitutional right. Although most point to Biblical scripture as the reason for their opposition, we were not a theocracy but a constitutional republic. The American Constitution clearly defines a separation between church and state. Furthermore, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states “…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In modern context, that could easily include the right of marriage.
Think back 50 to 100 years ago. Even though this amendment existed, in many states it was illegal for two people of different races to get married. Now, after an Officer of the Peace in Louisiana recently denied an interracial couple a marriage license, most Americans would be furious if someone tried to argue that the couple’s 14th Amendment rights were not violated.
Since it would be unconstitutional to argue that one group is not covered by the Constitution and one is, it seems that same-sex marriage is in our future.
Some obvious questions still exist: Why do you care if two people you don’t even know of the same-sex want to marry each other? How exactly would this affect your personal life?
Some may worry that their church may be forced into recognizing these marriages. This fear is unfounded. The separation of church and state works both ways; other than laws like not killing the parishioners, and abiding to building codes, the state has no business in the affairs of the church.
Some may worry that allowing same-sex couples to marry would hurt the sanctity of marriage, since Americans are all about upholding the sanctity of marriage. That is why 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce, and (according to the Kinsey Institute) 50% of men and 26% of women have engaged in extramarital sex at least once, and Britney Spears’ 72-hour just for fun marriage is allowed to happen.
I am not saying that marriage should not be respected. What I am arguing is that when so many do not respect the love and commitment that corresponds with marriage; why not allow marriage to a group that does?
History shows us that there are two groups of people: those who further social progress and others who hinder it. Those who have hindered it have been vilified by textbooks, while those who bring about social change are considered heroes.
It’s simply a matter of time before gay marriage becomes commonplace in the United States. So why fight against this unavoidable change when it’s sociologically bound to happen.
I just recently wrote a paper agreeing with this exact argument, however i feel that to attempt to strengthen your argument by saying that we shouldnt fight against this unavoidable change because its sociologically bound to happen is also ignorant…noone for any reason should EVER do somthing or change their opinion because it is inevitable, so to argue that people should change their moral standing on an issue for this is as ignorant as saying gays shouldnt be allowed marriage. But other than that i agree with what you said.