The Pros and Cons of the Legalization of Same Sex

Marriage
Mary Christensen
SOC-1020 Poole
Submitted 11-13-2014
The topic of same sex marriage is a hotly debated one, and rightly so. Legalizing
the institution is an unprecedented move and likely has consequences that we cannot
anticipate or even imagine. As of this writing, same sex marriage has been legalized in
32 states in the US and 16 countries in their entirety. While this push towards
legalization and social acceptance may seem heartwarming to some, there will
undoubtedly be long-term negative effects on both the public and those in new same
sex marriages.
In 2004 Amendment 3 appeared on the Utah ballot. Amendment 3 states that:

1. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
2. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a
marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
Some opponents of the amendment claimed that civil unions could be adversely
affected and that the amendment could interfere with an individuals right to will their
property to anyone of their choosing. Some groups also expressed displeasure with
statements made by the LDS church supporting traditional marriage prior to the vote.

Despite the concerns voiced by these groups, Amendment 3 passed with the support of
nearly 66% of the Utah vote. With such a large portion of Utahans supporting traditional
marriage, it came as quite a shock to many when the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
struck down Amendment 3 and any other Utah laws that prohibit the marriage of a
person to another person of their same sex.
The nullification of Amendment 3 resulted from a lawsuit brought by three same
sex couples, including one couple who possessed a marriage license from the state of
Iowa. The couples claimed that Utahs ban on same sex marriage and unwillingness to
recognize or provide benefits to same sex couples married in other states violated the
constitutional rights of said couples. The case advanced trough several courts before
arriving in the 10th circuit court. In December of 2013 Judge Robert Shelby ruled in favor
of the plaintiffs and struck down Amendment 3. He wrote that Utah's prohibition on
same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitutions guarantees of equal
protection and due process under the law. The States current laws deny its gay and
lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of
these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these
laws are unconstitutional. Chaos ensued. County clerk offices were overrun by
hundreds of same sex couples seeking a marriage license, some counties refused to
issue these licenses to same sex couples or simply declined to open the doors of their
offices. Governor Herbert was quoted as saying that he was "very disappointed an
activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah. I am
working with my legal counsel and the acting Attorney General to determine the best
course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah." Within a few days all

state offices and entities were ordered by the governor to comply with the ruling until a
stay could be received. A stay was finally granted by the Supreme Court in January
pending the review of the case by that court. A legal battle ensued, with the State of
Utah fighting the plaintiffs and federal government for the right to define marriage within
the state. The Supreme Court declined to rule on the case and instead upheld the
decision of the 10th Circuit Court, effectively legalizing same sex marriage in every state
within that courts jurisdiction. Amendment 3, despite its widespread voter support,
stood for less than 10 years.
The legalization of same sex marriage in Utah was met by some with celebration,
music, and dancing, but quickly we see this enthusiasm fading as the real world
consequences of the courts decisions become strikingly apparent. Utahans are now
facing the consequences of the extension of marriage benefits to same sex couples.
Tax payer dollars are now going to fund health insurance and other benefits for same
sex couples in which one partner is employed by the state, the recognition of marriage
as a spiritual and sacred institution is fading and being replaced by the idea of marriage
as nothing more than a legal contract, and more and more children are being raised in
homes without access to both a mother and a father as role models. Even those who
support the gay rights movement are hesitant to endorse same sex marriage, stating
that its legalization could lead to an assimilation of homosexual couples into society and
the resulting effects may result in the disappearance of gay and lesbian culture.
There are some effects of same sex marriage that have yet to be fully explored.
There are few studies about the effect of same sex marriage on poverty and domestic

abuse rates, even fewer about how it could affect the job market, education, crime, and
religious participation.
It would be wise to fully and thoroughly explore the effect of same sex marriage
legalization on taxpayer funds, family stability, and the wellbeing of children (among
other issues) before any endorsement of same sex marriage is made. The
consequences of our actions will be permanent and widely apparent. The legalization of
same sex marriage has the potential to affect us all, and yet there seems to be little
critical thinking on the issue. Why are some people so eager to approve policy changes
when the results of those changes are not widely understood?