English 1A 10 July 2011 Not Okay With Gays?

Gay, fag, homo, and queer are words that most of us have wrongly adopted into our vocabulary and have come to mean dumb, stupid, and peculiar. But why have these words come to evolve into derogatory slanders and slurs? They simply reflect the general American outlook on homosexual orientation; after all, it is the American way to discriminate against those who are different. Same-sex couples and marriages are deemed socially unacceptable by many and even illegal in most states in a world where marriage means a legal union of two people who are devoted to and in love with each other. Also, same-sex marriage is partially blamed for the destruction of family. Regardless of sexual orientation, marriage should not only be legal for all, but also socially accepted; without protection of the law and social tolerance, gays are deemed second class citizens and are even targets of violence. When the legalization of gay marriage starts to scratch the surface at the national scale, it is quick to be shut down, even by our own president, making the struggle for equal rights seem like even more of a long shot. In 2004, after the Massachusetts Judicial Court began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, President George W. Bush introduces his ban on gay marriage. President Bush states and argues that the union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith and that marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society (CNN.com). Bushs claims have no backing since America has no national religion and has never before been afraid to break what is accepted by different cultures. Even if religion were an issue, most religions teach followers to accept and

support others; so, why is there no support for same-sex couples strive to experience the most enduring human institution? Bush implies that gays are a bad influence on society when if they were given simple, basic rights, they could then become an asset instead of the burden people make them out to be. Bush even went as far to push Congress to ratify an amendment defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife; quite a large step for an issue that seems so juvenile. Since then the debate has raged on with many laws being passed, and then repealed-- most notably Californias Proposition 8. Unfortunately, as soon as it seems to prevail, legal tolerance for gays has still not been achieved. It is simply unfair and unconstitutional that heterosexual couples can wed under the protection of the law where as homosexual ones cannot; those that cannot unjustly miss out on rights that all citizens should be entitled to. Homosexuals are limited to the status of a civil union where as married straight couples have more rights. Homosexual couples who have been together for years not only experience prejudice, but also lack basic rights to which any couple should be entitled to. For example, a straight couple with similar relationship status of another homosexual couple will receive healthcare through a partners work and even something as basic as hospital visitation rights; both of which the gay couple is denied. Obviously this is intolerable; in the land of freedom and equality, gays are targeted as both socially and legally unacceptable; then again, in the land of the free blacks and women have been suppressed throughout and beyond the latter half of our nations existence. And then there is the issue of the actual act of getting married; something that a same-sex couple cannot wholly have. A wedding day is one of the most sentimental and meaningful day in anyones life and especially significant for a gay or lesbian couple; marriage is something that anyone should be able to do and with anyone of any sex. Like Dennis Prager argues in his essay Five Non-Religious Arguments for

Marriage, marriage is preferable to living together (494). The five reasons he lists apply to any type of marriage and should be attainable equally for anyone. Prager states that legality matters and that marriage means that you take the relationship to the utmost seriousness (494); it is a right that presently cannot be attained by the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. A gay couple deserves to be treated with the same respect that a straight couple would receive, something that clearly does not happen. Gays and lesbians are blamed also for disturbing the traditional structure of family, when gays could actually strengthen it if they were simply included as an accepted part of family structure. Betty G. Farrell, in her essay Family: Idea, Institution, and Controversy defines the core sentiments of family life as love, attachment, nurturance, and dependability (473); things that can be given by any type, shape or structure of family. Homosexuality is wrongly looked upon as a social disease when they are no different than normal people. A family consisting of two same-sex parents can provide the same stability and necessary elements of family life for children; and could even more so if they had the same legal backing than that of traditional families. In addition, they can even add to society, asserting themselves as parental figures when children would not typically have any. Since same-sex couples cannot reproduce themselves, they often adopt if they desire offspring and with around 10% of the American population homosexual, and more foster children would now have opportunities which they would have never gotten. Sadly, not all states even allow homosexuals to adopt children, something that would likely be positively impacted if the legal statuses of gay partnerships were to progress to marriage. Gays are made scapegoats for family decline in the United States (473) when really, they even help family structure! Traditional family structure helps retain social order, when if they were accepted, homosexual families can do the same.

Unfortunately, the battle is one of politics, a classic, complex liberal vs. conservative debate further hindering the advancement of gays; until it is resolved, total solution is unlikely. Most of the backing for the arguments against homosexual marriage sparks from the conservative side; they argue that it is not traditional and they are concerned that same-sex families will not give their children enough support to become productive adults and traditional family experience. The legalization of homosexual marriage, they argue, would redefine and weaken marriage as we know it. Recently, with the passing of the legalization of gay marriage in New York, republicans who backed gay marriage are under constant fire and criticism; republicans who crossed party lines to legalize gay marriage in the state have seen sharp increases in their campaign coffers, leading conservative activists to allege their votes were bought (CNN.com). Unfortunately, the accusations likely scare away potential votes from indifferent politicians or ones in favor of the legislation. Conservatives also worry that this would act as sort of a gateway marriage, and soon other relationships will be calling for legal protection. If there was compromise, maybe there would be less conflict; for example extending the rights of peoples in a civil union or domestic partnership would at least bring some contentment. Like most debates, this is one of opinion, and until there is majority acceptance of the legalization of gay marriage, there will likely be no successful national legislation to support the minority. The outlaw of gay-marriage can even be dangerous; not only physically, but also mentally. Gays, because of the popular intolerance they receive, are targets of violence and social disorder. This misconduct leaves homosexuals insecure and causes them to remain in the closet slowly changing them into a person they are not. What kind of message are we sending to our youth if it is unacceptable to express who you are? Some families have even been known to

disown their children due to their untraditional sexuality. Sadly, even our own military has a dont ask, dont tell stand on homosexuality! Infamous incidents of hate crimes against gays such as the Laramie Project and Harvey Milks assassination instill fear in many. Though, upon his death, Milk became a martyr for gay rights, as stated by University of San Francisco professor Peter Novak, but still many were afraid of the consequences of being openly gay, not to mention an openly gay official. Many gays are still afraid to pronounce their sexuality because of fear; fear of hate, or even losing ones job. This is no way to live and something must be done! It seems as if history repeats itself, every half-century or so it seems like a major group of people are struggling for civil rights; first it was blacks, and then women and now homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are perceived as a negative impact on American culture because they are simply different and are now speaking out and developing a campaign striving towards acceptance. Americans preach that you are free to be whoever you want, and yet you are only free to be if you are straight. The key to same-sex marriage assimilation into our culture is not only legal protection but also social acceptance and the realization that gays are not responsible for disturbing family structure and that they are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual Americans.