Legalization of Gay Marriage - Personal and Constitutional Rights - Research Paper Example

November 9, Legalization of Gay Marriage: A Matter of Personal and Constitutional Rights On May 9, President BarackObama made history, when he affirmed his personal support for same-sex marriage: “…same-sex couples should be able to get married” (Yoshino 11). What is particularly striking in his opinion is his belief that same-sex couples can and have properly raised their children, which undermines the arguments of anti-gay marriage that gay couples raise children with poor self-esteem and gender identity issues. The primary issues of Obama’s support focused on equality and fairness in law. Indeed, if fairness is considered, gay couples should have been able to get married centuries ago. At present, same-sex marriage is recognized only at the state level because the federal Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal recognition of such marriages. This essay argues that gay marriage should be legalized because same-sex relationships are not intrinsically more unstable compared to heterosexual unions, gay couples have the same interests as straight ones in getting married, same-sex couples do not rear psychologically unhealthy children, and same-sex marriage promotes and affirms personal and constitutional rights to privacy and social justice. Same-sex relationships are not inherently more unsound compared to heterosexual relationships. Opponents of same-sex marriage stressed that homosexuals tend to fly from one relationship to another, which means that they are unprepared to be in monogamous marriages. Obama presents a different view, when he talks about people in service and close acquaintances “who are as committed, as monogamous, as responsible” (Yoshino 11). His personal experience reveals that these couples can dedicate themselves to one partner too. If there are many gay people who have numerous sexual partners, this cannot be isolated as an inherent trait of being gay because many heterosexual men and women are unfaithful to their partners too. Numerous gays are in long-lasting relationships because they can do so and because they want to. Hence, saying that gays cannot be committed is fallacious and is not based on the reality of long-term gay relationships. Gay couples have the same interests as heterosexual ones and as a matter of fairness, they deserve the same access to marriage. In “The Fundamental Argument for Same-Sex Marriage,” Wedgwood stresses the reality than countless gay couples have the same expectations as heterosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They expect sexual intimacy, domestic and economic cooperation, and a voluntary commitment to preserving their relationship (Wedgwood 229). Married gay people, or those who want to get married, are like any other couple who see themselves married to the same person as long as they live because of their love for and loyalty to one another. Given the same interests, they should not be prevented from getting married. Furthermore, an important aspect of marriage is its social approval. When people voluntarily marry, they tend to see marriage as a social blessing for their union. They are married, not only in the eyes of God, but also in the eyes of society. Bolte emphasize the importance of gaining the social recognition through marriage in “Do Wedding Dresses Come in Lavender? The Prospects and Implications of Same-Sex Marriage.” She stresses that society sees and respects marriage as both legal and sacred (Bolte 112). Gay people desire the same social acknowledgement. The symbolic meaning of marriage provides a psychological positive feeling for their own relationship, in relation to how others see their union. Married gay people do not necessarily raise children with psychological problems. Opponents of same-sex marriage assert that children of gay people will suffer from psychological problems because of the discrimination against their gay parents (Bolte 113). Same-sex marriage will actually be good for children. As stated, marriage is a social blessing that even many children believe in. If their gay parents are married, the more they feel secure in the stability of their family, and the less they feel stigmatized (Bolte 113). Those who are against gays are the ones who tend to bully the children of gay parents, and in this case, the problem is not the gay parents, but the bullies. Their sexist attitudes and practices produce the negative effects on the children of gay parents and not the gay parents. Yoshino, in “For Obama, Its About the Children,” stresses that Obama understands that gay couples do not raise children with behavioral problems. Obama wondered whether opponents of same-sex marriage “had the experience that [he has] had in seeing same-sex couples who are as committed, as monogamous, as responsible -- as loving a group of parents as any heterosexual couple that [he knows]. And in some cases, more so” (Yoshino 11). Gay parents can be as loving and supportive as other parents. Gay people are not innately bad parents, just because they are gay. It is even possible that because of their gender, they are more aware of ensuring that their children get the same love and attention, whatever their interests might be. Cantor noted that a number of psychological studies and twenty-five years of experience of a child psychiatrist serving in Connecticut courts asserted that gay couples can love their children and take care of them in the same way as heterosexual couples (149). Attachment theory, for instance, asserts that as long as children feel love and caring from a dependable adult, they will grow up as loving and caring adults too. Psychological theories on child development do not emphasize that the gender or sexual orientation of parents has anything to do with parenting skills and styles. For instance, if authoritative parenting is an effective parenting style that raises happy, independent, sociable, and confident children and gay parents use this style, does that mean that their gender will undermine the positive effects of authoritative parenting? Cantor implicates that gay parents are not inherently worse as parents than heterosexual counterparts because they can both use effective parenting styles and rear equally good children. Legal gay marriage gives children their legal and economic benefits and rights (Bolte 113). Gay couples, who are married, split expenses and time in raising the children. In any case of divorce, the other parent will be forced to provide financial support to his or her children (Bolte 113). In instances of death of their spouse, the legal status of parenting transfers to the gay partners (Bolte 113). This legal status prevents their children from becoming orphans (Bolte 113). Thus, gay marriage is good for children too in the legal and economic sense. Aside from these benefits to children of gay couples, gay marriage can support, rather than demoralize, the sacred institution of marriage. Blankenhorn stresses that before, he did not support gay marriage, but after careful consideration, he changed his views like Obama did, which the former expressed in his opinion article, “How My View on Gay Marriage Changed.” Blakenhorn argues that gay marriage in itself is not bad for the institution of marriage, and it might even help people reconsider the holiness of marriage. For him, marriage means commitment, and if gays want to get married, it indicates their enthusiasm for monogamy. This motivation is worthy of the blessing of marriage. Furthermore, marriage is better than cohabitation. Opponents of gay marriage, if truly conservative in their views of marriage, should choose marriage over cohabitation, says Blankenhorn. The more that gay people want to get married, the more they veer away from multi-sexual partnerships that defy marriage. Granting gays the right to marriage affirms the traditions of marriage over cohabitation. Gay people have the personal right to get married like heterosexuals because it affirms fairness and social justice. Gray applies Rawls’ concept of justice and fairness on same-sex marriage in “Rawlss Principle of Justice as Fairness and Its Application to the Issue of Same-Sex Marriage.” He says: “Rawls calls for social institutions that do not confer arbitrary and discriminatory advantages on one class of per sons at the expense of others” (159). Granting marriage only to heterosexual couples portray social injustice. Fairness means that all people are unconstrained in their personal lives too. Justice Anthony Kennedy read the majority ruling in Lawrence et al. v. Texas and stated that gay people “are entitled to respect for their private lives” (Newsweek 38). They have privacy rights and marriage is a personal issue. Who people choose to marry is a personal matter and not something that the government should control or interfere with. Furthermore, when opponents want to ban gay marriage, the underlying message is gender discrimination. Blankenhorn realizes that gay marriage is under attack because the equality among heterosexual and homosexual people is under attack: “…the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus.” If people oppose gay marriage because they dislike gays, then their arguments are immoral and unconstitutional. Blankenhorn calls for the equalization of all people, regardless of their sexual orientations: “Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness” (Blankenhorn). To treat all genders fairly requires giving fair access to the same rights. Blankenhorn stresses that now is “the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over.” He notes that gay marriage is not a point against marriage, but a point for the personal rights of people to get married when they are ready to do so. Gay people have constitutional rights for privacy and marriage. Kennedy ruled that using the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, gays were entitled to privacy rights. “The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,” underscored Kennedy (Newsweek 38). Criminalizing gay marriage is similar to saying that being gay is a crime, which it is not. In addition, detractors of same-sex marriage underscore that marriage is traditionally a marriage between a man and a woman, a constitutional right that relates to giving birth and having a family. The federal challenge to Proposition 8 demands the California amendment to state law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman (Yoshino 11). At trial, the defenders of the amendment stressed that allowing same-sex couples to marry would redefine marriage from being a “pro-child societal institution” to being an affiliation about “companionship and personal fulfillment” (Yoshino 11). The difficulty with describing same-sex marriage as being exclusively about “companionship and personal fulfillment” is that it indicates that same-sex couples will not become parents (Yoshino 11). The 2010 census shows that “one-quarter of same-sex households are raising children” (Yoshino 11). If gay parents can give their children the same love, care, and resources as heterosexual parents, it does not matter if they are their biological parents. Considering this, they can marry and have families too. The traditional idea of marriage as between man and woman only is a limited idea of marriage. An anthropological definition of marriage can be used, where marriage is defined by changing social norms and beliefs (Bolte 114). People define what marriage is, and if they think that marriage should include gay people, then the state should not ban it. Nine state governments, as well as the District of Columbia, the Coquille Indian Tribe, and the Suquamish tribe, have legalized gay marriage. This shows the increasing popular support for gay marriage, which is a strong indicator that the American culture is ready to accept gay marriages as part of its spectrum of marriages. The fair way of defining marriage is to respect new cultural norms and beliefs about sexual orientation and marriage. Aside from man-woman marriage argument, people who want to ban same-sex marriage argue that marriage is about procreation, which gay couple cannot meet. This opinion denies couples who cannot bear children, or old couples who are beyond their reproductive years the right to get married. Gay people may not have the biological capacity to make children, but they can adopt or have children with others and rear them as their own. Adoption is an important social benefit of gay marriage because of the large population of orphans in America. Indeed, gay parents do not have to be the biological parents to be good parents. Gay couples should have the right to be married because they should equally access state benefits and entitlements that are conferred to married couples. For instance, they must have the rights of filing joint tax returns (Bolte 115). This action can reduce expenses and provide more money for the family. The tax savings can improve the quality of living of their children. Gay couples, when married, can be entitled to social housing and other entitlements to married people (Bolte 115). Every person has the same basic right to “participate in the basic institutions of society” (Wedgwood 240). Marriage is seen as one of the institutions of society that gay people should freely access as their constitutional right. Gay marriage is not a social evil or social disadvantage. In fact, these studies and articles showed that gay marriage is good for gay couples and their children. Same-sex marriage can also boost marriage rates and affirm its traditional values of monogamy and long-term commitment to building families. Finally, same-sex marriage is a personal right and a constitutional entitlement. To be gay is not illegal, and to be married to one should not be illegal too. If society promotes fairness and justice, it can prove its existence by approving gay marriage in both state and federal levels. When the time comes that gays can freely marry in any state, the American society can claim that it is a truly free and equitable civilization. Works Cited Blankenhorn, David. “How My View on Gay Marriage Changed.” The New York Times, 22 June 2012. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.< http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/how-my-view-on-gay-marriage-changed.html?_r=0 > Bolte, Angela. “Do Wedding Dresses Come in Lavender? The Prospects and Implications of Same-Sex Marriage.” Social Theory and Practice: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Social Philosophy 24.1 (1998): 111-131. Print. Cantor, Donald J. “Conclusion: The Case for Same-sex Marriage.” Same-Sex Marriage: The Legal and Psychological Evolution in America. Eds.Donald Cantor, Elizabeth Cantor, James C. Black, and Campbell D. Barrett. Middletown, CN: Wesleyan U P, 2006. 149-158. Print. Gray, John Scott. “Rawlss Principle of Justice as Fairness and Its Application to the Issue of Same-Sex Marriage.” South African Journal of Philosophy 23.2 (2004): 158-170. Print. Newsweek. “The War over Gay Marriage.” Newsweek 142.1 (7 July 2003): 38-45. Print. Wedgwood, Ralph. “The Fundamental Argument for Same-Sex Marriage.” Journal of Political Philosophy 7.3 (1999): 225-242. Print. Yoshino, Kenji. “For Obama, Its About the Children.” New York Times (13 May 2012): 11. Print. Read More