The issue of same-sex marriage has plagued many countries across the world. In the United States, there has been a lot of resistance to the proposal that a bill is passed to allow gay marriage. The opposition to gay marriage is usually fueled by a religious bias that stipulates the moral standards by which everyone should conduct him/herself. The “constitution of the United States guarantees the freedom of religion” (Badget 21, pp. 5). It’s important to note that a certain moral standard may not be sufficient for the needs of every individual within the country’s borders. This proposal supports the legalization of gay marriage, and the points below will prove that there is no substantial basis to continue denying the gay community a right to marry.
Separate state functions from church to have an objective view
Most Americans come from a Christian religious background or other equivalent religions. Christians and most other religions believe in the existence of a Supreme Being who gives people guidelines by which they live (Reed 34). Everyone with a strong religious background will initially react to gay marriage as a morally wrong practice. However, to reach a conclusion that serves the interests of everyone, one should put his/her religious morals aside and look at the situation from a third-person, objective standpoint (Jost 770).
Most of those opposed to gay marriage usually point at the need for protecting the sanctity of the marriage institution. Many opponents often view marriage as a sort of sacred trust that is handed down by a supreme being (Rauch pp. 3). However, as far as the federal constitution is concerned, marriage is and will always remain a secular institution. Treating marriage as a secular institution will free it from interferences such as religious bias which is one of the main obstacles towards the realization of equity in marriage.
Gay marriage will not affect heterosexual marriage in the United States
Many of those opposed to gay marriage have often pointed out that if gay marriage is legalized then other practices such as bestiality, polygamy and incest are likely to follow (Bidstrup 23). This kind of thinking is brought about by the view that gay marriage is morally wrong. “Countries that have legalized gay marriages such as Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada have seen no effect on heterosexual marriage that is different from that in countries that do not recognize the practice” (Jost 735, pp. 4).
Research data indicates that the decline in marriage registered in the Scandinavian countries can be compared to other European countries that are relatively affluent and do not recognize gay unions such as Germany and France (Jost 778). The decline in marriage has been continuing for several decades and does not in any way relate to the legal adoption or recognition of same-sex unions. If a bill is passed to legalize gay marriage across the United States, then it’s evident that the move won’t affect heterosexual marriage or act as a precursor for other practices.
Legalizing gay marriage is an idea whose time has come
Throughout the history of the United States, gay unions were illegal in all states until the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision that took place in Texas in 2003 (Badget 6, pp. 5). Not so long after the Lawrence decision, a clip was aired on popular TV portraying a successful gay couple expressing their relief as they were now able to have a sexual relationship without breaking the law (Reed 27). The ban on gay sex by states has done nothing to effectively eradicate the practice from their territory. Similarly, the illegal status of gay marriage has not stopped gay weddings from taking place across the United States.
Instances of gay couples or lesbians exchanging rings and living together are common and the law will never be able to prevent that from happening (Jost 781). All that the law does is prevent inheritance and other benefits that usually come with marriage unions (Bidstrup 5). In some cases, the law may seek to punish some committed gay or lesbian couples for their monogamy, but this cannot stop such unions from being witnessed. It’s important to accept that gay unions are a reality in the United States and therefore the law should stop fighting the practice and instead find a way of supporting it for greater benefits to those involved (Rauch, pp. 6).
Legalization of gay marriage will ensure a stable child-raising environment in the gay families
Critics of gay marriage point out that marriage functions to provide the institutional support required to raise children. Unlike heterosexual couples, gay or lesbian couples are not able to biologically produce children of their own by way of each other and thus the notion is that they do not require institutional support (Badget 43). The results of the 2000 census revealed that more than 95% of counties across the US have at least one gay couple with a child (Rauch, pp. 3).
This finding defied the remoteness or conservativeness of the counties. This finding shows that many gay couples are already raising children. The situation may evoke some bad feelings in some people but it’s the reality and if the institution of marriage is legally good for children in heterosexual unions, then why should it seem to punish children of gay couples simply because of the sexual orientation of their parents (Jost 783)
Analysts have pointed out that children of same-sex parents have a higher potential for psychological damage (Rauch, pp. 4). However, this claim has no substantial evidence to support it and therefore it does not hold for now and should not be used as a basis to deny basic rights to children in gay unions. It’s therefore necessary that law recognizes and legitimizes gay marriages to better serve the interests of such children (Rauch, pp. 7).
This proposal shows that the many arguments presented to oppose the legalization of gay marriages have to do with the beliefs of people rather than ethics and legality. Many people are opposed to gay marriage due to their religious beliefs which inform what they believe to be good or bad. The “Constitution of the United States guarantees the freedom of worship” and thus it’s not right to apply one person’s beliefs onto another. Thus the choice to accept or not to accept gay marriage should be a personal one (Jost 782). The gay community should be given a chance to marry, regardless of how others will think about that. Marriage is and should remain secular to the state and therefore the state should not rely on religion to determine the legality of gay unions.
Badgett, Lee. “Did gay marriage destroy marriage in Scandinavia? Slate Magazine. 2004. Web.
Bidstrup, Scott. “Gay Marriage: The Arguments and Motives.”. 2006. Web.
Jost, Kim. “Gay marriage showdowns”. CQ Researcher 18 (2009): 769-792. Print.
Rauch, Jonathan. “Gay Marriage 5: It’s Good for Kids.” Articles by Jonathan Rauch. 2004. Web.
Reed, Gusciora. “Will Gay Marriage Help or Hurt America’s Children?” UChannel. 2005.