Homosexual marriage has long been a heated and debated argument in American culture. The presidential race of 2004 brought the issue to the forefront of American politics as well as around the world. The argument still goes on to this day. Homosexual activists fight for equal rights by redefining marriage, examining and disproving the “gay” misconceptions and proposing different alternatives and ways of achieving equality while anti-homosexual groups fight for status quo. The debate seems to be at a deadlock, but the fight will continue. American citizens have the right to pursue happiness in any shape of form if it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Same-sex marriage infringes on no one.
Today, marriage is defined as a bond between a husband and a wife. Homosexuals and homosexual supporters are trying to change this ecclesiastic definition to include marriage as being between hetero or homosexual couples. The history of marriage dates backs to the Puritans in Massachusetts. They held marriage as a civil institution not as an ecclesiastic or church function. As time went on, religion crept back into the government’s establishment of marriage, so much that married people nowadays are given more rights than people that receive civil unions. Banning of marriage is not a new issue, in fact, bans on interracial marriages plagued America’s history. “In 1967, 72% of Americans opposed interracial marriage and 48% of Americas believed interracial marriage should be classified as a crime” (Cahill 13). Interracial marriage started like same-sex marriage, but the last 30 years, has brought about change. The bans have been lifted for future marriages. Marriage has been defined as a bond between men and women, but a precedent has been set for change.
Like interracial marriage, same-sex marriages face stigmas. Some are rooted in religious intolerance, others in misunderstanding, and the last misconceptions are rooted in stupidity. Some misconceptions that face same-sex couples are: they will ruin the sanctity and institution of marriage, they are unhealthy and unsafe, homosexuals are abusive and are pedophiles, homosexual rights are terrorism, and same-sex marriages will lead to a decline in the population. Where ever these poor excuses or reasons came from is not relevant the fact that each argument has no basis is relevant. Each misconception can be refuted and proved a misconception. Take for instance, the argument that homosexuals are abusive and pedophiles. Numerous studies prove that children blossom in homosexual households (Cahill 33). The pedophile issue is easily refuted as well. A 1998 study found that 90% of pedophiles are men, and 95% of these individuals are heterosexual (Cahill pg 34). Michael Nava and Robert Dawidoff say it the best, “If the opponents of gay rights are truly concerned about predatory sexual behavior, they ought to educate their heterosexual sons, who are the most likely to grow up to be sex offenders, to respect the physical integrity of women and children” (139). In other words, if you want to lower the amount of sex offenders, educate heterosexual men to respect women and children. Most misconceptions about homosexuals are based on myths and lies. Homosexuals are disproving these fictitious stories every day.
Above all the homosexual community’s agenda uses the equality issue as a main backbone for their arguments. Separation of church and state is a big part of the equality issue. This theory is that the church and the government are two separate entities in American culture. Neither should cross the path nor try to hold power in the other institution. Separation of church and state is divided into three different principles: neutrality, equality, and libertarian. Each principle upholds a different aspect of the theory. The libertarian and neutrality principle do not affect homosexuals as much as the equality principle does. “The disestablishment clause (equality principle) serves a double purpose: It protects religion from intrusion by the state and by fostering religious freedom for all without ascendance for any, it protects the state from the warring religious interests that have bloodies history and continue to do so today” (Nava 76). When enforced in this county, the principle is the backbone of separation of church and state and could jeep this debate from escalating into acts of violence. The principle simply asserts that the government cannot give one religion precedence over another.
As a case in point, anti-homosexual activists use the sanctity of marriage as an argument. The word sanctity is smothered with religious connotations and in effect a violation of church and state and an act of discrimination. The word sanctity in any ban or law renders that law unconstitutional. This violation of separation of church and state, and this discrimination gives credence to the belief that anti-homosexual critics believe that homosexuals are not equal and not citizens just because they are homosexual. Banning marriage on the sanctity basis is a violation of the separation of church and state theory.
In the meantime, the status quo harbors ill will for the future. Unless one side concedes, this argument will continue and fester to greater proportions. More actions of violence and atrocities like those that have plagued America’s history will stem from this prolonged discourse. Thus, the status quo must change. The definition of marriage should be changed from its ecclesiastic definition to one that defines the civil aspect of marriage. The government is required to give the same rights to all married couples. These are to include social security, immigration, adoption, and other basic rights. Separation of church and state should be upheld and revered in modern culture. In addition, the misconceptions must be displayed as fallacies. Equality is the main obligation that the United States of America has to its citizens. There is no just reason for discriminating against homosexuals. Equality must prevail if we are a nation that gives the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In summation, America must change its viewpoints on marriage to uphold the integrity of separation of church and state, and to grant equality to homosexual citizens.
Audi, Robert. "The Separation of Church and State and the Obligations of Citizenship." Philosophy and Public Affairs 18 (1989). JSTOR. 24 Oct. 2007.
Beth, Loren. "Toward a Modern American Theory of Church-State Relationships." Political Science Quarterly 70 (1995). JSTOR. 24 Oct. 2007.
Cahill, Sean. Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: Focus on the Facts. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2004.
Nava, Micheal, and Robert Dawidoff. Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994.
Snyder, Allen. "Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violates Church-State Separation." Dissident Voice 15 Mar. 2004. 29 Oct. 2007
2 comments:
I agree with your topic about homosexuals having equal right just as heterosexuals. However, this topic is very controversial and will always have someone who agrees or disagrees with what you say. Good job and how do you think the government or society should go about incorporating same sex marriages?
I think the governement should simply give them rights. Dissolve the bans and laws that are placed on homosexuals and let them marry. All the rights and priviledges should be intact.
Post a Comment