Rowland 1

Saydee Rowland
Vanderslik
English 100
19 November 2014
Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage
Whether an individual is married or single, heterosexual or homosexual,
legalizing same-sex marriage is about everyone. Same-sex marriage has a short but
heated history in the United States alone. It first came to national attention in a 1993
Hawaii case, in which judges found that the states constitution required a compelling
reason not to extend to gays equal marriage rights. The ruling prompted congress to push
through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented homosexual couples from
receiving benefits traditionally conferred by marriage. Since then, states have scrambled
to define their own stance of the issue, in some cases recognizing civil unions or domestic
partnerships. Currently, in every state there are decisions about laws being made about
same-sex marriage. Supporters and oppositionist alike cite religion, civil rights and
procreation as their defense, but on totally opposite sides. The views on legalizing same
sex marriage are effected by religious beliefs, the law itself and interpretation of civil
rights. Both arguments have great points, but sometimes feelings need to be put aside and
everyone needs to take a look at the big picture. If someone happy with their husband or
wife, why cant they be happy together?
If same-sex couples are allowed to marry what would this mean to the sanctity as
marriage between heterosexual couples? Would allowing same-sex marriage change the
benefits of marriage now afforded to heterosexual couples? It has been the belief that

Rowland 2
allowing same-sex marriage could lead to other groups wanting to legalize marriage.
From a religious standpoint, leaders argue that marriage has a specific purpose for society
and same-sex marriage does not fit into this mold. From a political standpoint, the debate
about legalizing same-sex marriage and enacting the Federal Marriage Amendment is
losing steam. The public is losing interest, the margins are becoming neutral for
opposition and agreement on both sides of the argument and unless its an election year,
the politicians arent focusing on the issue. Allowing same-sex couples to wed doesnt
weaken the sanctity of marriage between heterosexuals, it wont lead to an outbreak in
other types of unions and the argument that marriage is for the purpose of procreation
isnt supported. Politicians are no longer about to use the subject as a vantage point. As a
society, legalizing same-sex marriage would acknowledge same-sex relationships as
relevant. Legalizing same-sex marriage recognizes the commitment of lesbian and gay
couples choice for monogamy, their willingness to commit to each other for life and yes,
even their desire to raise families as a couple.
Religious oppositionists of same-sex marriage believe that the reason for marriage
is for the purpose of procreation, repopulating the earth. Barret Pitner, a multimedia
journalist for The National Journal, recently wrote an article featuring David
Blankenhorns views on same-sex marriage. Blankenhorn has a strong opinion about
same-sex marriage. He contends that same-sex marriage and the damage it may create for
the already troubled institution of marriage would add to the problem. We are in a society
that is seeing increasing levels of unwed childbearing, non-marital cohabitation and
family fragmentation among heterosexuals. From a procreation standpoint, there would
be no reason to allow same-sex marriage, as gay and lesbian couples wouldnt be able to

Rowland 3
naturally have their own children. When expressing viewpoints of supporting same sex
marriage, its argued that a good morals start with family and an ideal family unit is two
parents; a father and a mother. On the other hand, supporters of legalizing same-sex
marriage would argue that if the sole purpose of marriage were to procreate, and if a
heterosexual couple is unable to bear children, then they should also not be allowed to
marry. Its been pointed out that the legal institution of marriage is good for the children
of heterosexual parents, why should the children of lesbian and gay couples be punished
by their government simply because of their sexual orientation of their parents? Marriage
is no more solely for the purpose of procreating, than love is solely for heterosexuals.
Over the last fourteen years, voters have approved 32 out of 33 statewide bans on
gay marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage are still winning the legislative fight. The
1993 Hawaii case prompted to push through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which
prevented homosexual couples from receiving benefits traditionally conferred by
marriage. States have scrambled to define their own stance on the issue. On the other side
of the legal debate for the same-sex, there are victories. In 2003, the Massachusetts
victory, 13 states passed anti-gay-marriage initiatives on the subsequent election.
Tom Head, author of numerous books, including the Historical Dictionary of
American Civil Liberties and the ACLU, explains that the Federal Marriage Amendment
states: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a
woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any other state, shall be
construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any
union other than the union of a man and woman. (Head, 2013.) Ed White, of The Daily
News, insists that banning same-sex marriage does not violate the 14th constitutional

Rowland 4
amendment of equal protection, since there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage.
He argues that even if same-sex marriage became a constitutional right, it does not mean
that it would become a fundamental right. He implies that is the concern is that the right
to marry is a civil right and marriage is for the purpose of procreation and this is
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. Than by that definition
banning same-sex marriage does not violate fundamental or civil rights. The gay
movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a
sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing peoples view of
homosexuality, (TFP Student Action, 2013.) Supporters of same-sex marriage state that
the argument that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within
the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal
protection and equal treatment. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every
citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all
about.
The opposition against same-sex marriage uses a few basic key points in their
argument, religion, politics and civil rights. From their viewpoint they can see how these
things support their stance. Religiously, marriage is for procreation; a union between one
man and one women. Politically, in congress the support is still strong against legalizing
same-sex marriage with a majority of the states still having bans on same-sex marriage.
When looking at civil rights, oppositionists do find marriage a fundamental or civil right.
And when the advocates support same-sex marriage, the reasons are the same. They
believe that a religious union is not exclusive to heterosexual couples. Same-sex
supporters are gaining ground politically with the progress they are making in states that

Rowland 5
have adopted same-sex union laws. And from the viewpoint of the supporters of samesex marriage, the civil right that refers to the pursuit of happiness is exactly what they
are asking for.

Rowland 6

Works Cited
Pitner, B.H. (2012, June 23). Same-sex Marriage Opponent Reverses Stance. National
Jorunal.com. Web.6 Mar. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nationaljournal.com TFP
Action (n.d.) 10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must be
Opposed Retrieved from http://tfpstudentaction.org
Head, T. (2012, June 1) Four Reasons to Support Gay Marriage and Oppose the Federal
Marriage Amendment. About.com.civilliberties.civilliberties.web.21.feb.2013
TIME (2008, May 22) A Brief History of Gay Marriage Retrieved from http://time.com
Silken, J.W. (n.d.). Public Justice Report. Second Quarter Retrieved from
http://www.cpjustic.org
White, E. (2013, March 7). Judge taking a look at Michigans gay marriage ban. The Daily
News, pg 1-2.