Gay Marriage Should Be Banned in California - Essay Example

?Gay Marriage Should Be Banned in California The legality of gay marriages on California has been hotly debated and gone to fever pitches of discussion on both sides of the political aisle. Each side has totally valid and acceptable issues to raise regarding the pros and cons of gay marriage. However, for all of the Declaration of Human Rights propaganda that spews from the mouths of gay marriage supporters, that is easily neutralized by the anti gay marriage groups because they have the constitution on their side. Our constitution clearly spells out the criteria for a marriage license to be granted and considered valid. It is not open for discussion, nor interpretation. The gay and lesbian community argues that marriage is not defined in the constitution as simply being between a man and a woman. In fact, there is no mention of sexual orientation pairing in the law. Although that may be true to some extent, it does not erase the fact that marriage in our country is viewed in the traditional sense of the word as handed down from generation to generation over the past centuries. According to people such as Joe Messerl (Messerli,”Should Same Sex Marriage Be Legalized?”) marriage in the US comes with a traditional definition. That definition of marriage states that it is: Traditionally in this country, marriage has been defined as a religious & legal commitment between a man and woman, as well as the ultimate expression of love. (Messerli,”Should Same Sex Marriage Be Legalized?”) What the constitution indicates as the law of the land is open to interpretation. Marriage in its very sense was first defined for us by our forefathers by blessing the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony. Never during that period did a same sex couple ever come forward and ask to be married. Yet now, after borders have been drawn and definitions drawn, the gay and lesbian community expects us to just undo centuries of tradition and understanding in order to allow them to railroad their beliefs unto the majority of the people. Alright, there must be an admission at this point that there is a tremendous growth in the number of same sex relationships and our society has come to accept these partnerships. But allowing them to marry and redefine what we once believed to be an infallible definition of the term is something that cannot easily be allowed not accepted. Traditionally based marriages already face a 50 percent divorce rate. As such, Divorce has already weakened the institution of marriage and forced us to redefine the meaning of marriage and family to include a previously married man or woman who has children of their own but has married again and created a new family dynamic in the process. By allowing marriage to accommodate a definition that will include fay marriage, it will seriously seem like marriage is an institution that is no longer taken seriously and is only an act put on for the public. Most importantly, there is a common denominator in the redefined marriage for divorced couples, the man and woman still have to and can produce new offspring. That is an act that a gay couple cannot accomplish through natural means and thus, makes a mockery out of marriage whose other purpose for being is to allow a man and a woman to legally procreate and propagate our species. (Messerli,”Should Same Sex Marriage Be Legalized?”) Since procreation is one of the main reasons why marriage is thought of as a highly sacred act of unification between a man and a woman, we can also argue that one of the main reasons that we need to ban gay marriage in California is to protect the minds of our children from the corruption based upon the confusion they may experience once they come across a gay married couple. Think about it. We don't really care if a person is straight, bi, lesbian, or gay. We normally just let them be as long as they do not veer into territory where their existence can cause actual harm to certain sectors of our society such as our children. It is that area of our society that the controversial Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in California, serves to protect. As parents and educators, we wish to maintain the innocence of our children for as long as possible and ease them into the complex world of adult life and its accompanying problems and experiences at a controlled pace. Learning about homosexuality is one of those lessons that we want to present to our children when they are mentally mature enough to understand that although it is accepted by society, it is by no means the norm by which we live our lives. The last thing a parent wants is to see his or her child at a lesbian wedding then coming home and asking us all about gay marriage and how it is different from the one mom and dad has. (Sharp, “4 Reasons Why California Banned Gay Marriage, Again”). The argument against Gay marriage all boils down to how marriage is defined. As of the year 2000 in California, 61 percent of voters showed their support for the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. (Sharp, “4 Reasons Why California Banned Gay Marriage, Again”). The argument for and against gay marriage is practically on equal footing when you consider some elements. Such as the right of a human being to love and be loved by somebody, be he or she of the same sex, the right to choose a partner, etc. All show us that gay marriage should have the same coverage and recognition as a traditional marriage. However, gay marriage tends to contradict what has become the national identity of marriage (Ferguson, “Gay Marriage: An American and Feminist Dilemma”). One cannot deny that by recognizing gay marriage as equal to a traditional marriage, we will have willingly undermined what Ferguson (“Gay Marriage: An American Feminist Dilemma”) defined as “the normative status of the heterosexual nuclear family”. The American nuclear family has already been thoroughly weakened by the existence of divorce and the mixed-up extended family that the extended family of divorced children create. By introducing another form of family, one that can never fall under the definition of marriage in relation to procreation, we will have made all the traditional building blocks that our society worked so hard to create moot and academic. (Messerli, “ Should Same Sex Marriages Be Legalized?”). It is somewhat difficult to understand why gay couples in California must insist on revising our state constitution in reference to the definition of marriage just so they can undergo the marriage rights by law. I say it is difficult to understand by because we already have Proposition 22 in place. Proposition 22 already affords them the right to register as a same sex couple, more often defined as domestic partners, in the state of California and affords them almost the same rights and privileges as a traditionally married couple (League of Women Voters, “Proposition 8”). The only rule that is prohibited under Proposition 22 is marriage between same sex couples, which was rendered moot and academic since their registration accords them partnership rights within the state of California. This is a law that cannot be changed and is recognized by all the residents of the state (League of Women Voters, “Proposition 8”). We were all raised to believe in the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is one of the most powerful influences in a person's life that helps define the kind of society that we shall have in the future. That is why gay marriage cannot be allowed in the state of California. Let us not forget that marriage is not just a mere contract entered into by a man and a woman who are of legal age. Marriage is not a mere ceremony that is put on for show in front of family and friends, nor does it connote some sort of partnership between people (“Questions and Answers About Proposition 8”). Same sex couples who wish to have gay marriage recognized and legalized in the state of California are so fond of claiming that they are being persecuted and discriminated against in the same way that the African Americans who were in relationships with White Americans were prior to the granting and recognition of interracial marriages. By blowing the discussion out of proportion and forcing it to become debate fodder across the state, they hope to win their “right” to marry. The problem with their claim based on similarities with interracial marriage discrimination is that intermarriage still falls under the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman. It was only the racial discrimination part that needed to be corrected. That is not the same case for same sex couples as the prior argument is between straight couples instead of gay couplings. (Somerville, “The Case Against Same Sex Marriage”). Looking at this argument from a psychological standpoint, we have to take into consideration the fact that any children brought into this world through artificial means by these gay couples will not be raised in a traditional household and as such, the child's understanding of what is traditionally considered to be normal shall be undermined. Without any exposure to the male of the specie while growing up (as is the case in a traditional household) the child will be deprived of early life learning lessons that will be badly needed in order to help them adjust to social life once they are thrown into the general population in school and other places (Hansen, “Love Isn't Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same Sex Marriage Will Harm Children”). Same sex couples must understand that though they are tolerated by society, that does not mean that they are accepted and will be granted the same rights and privileges as the traditional couples. Society must protect the traditions that have stood the test of time in reference to the sanctity of marriage and raising a child. Supporters of gay marriage cannot continue to argue that marriage laws are discriminatory because just like all contracts that are entered into by individuals of legal age and status, they too must meet certain requirements. Since they fail to do so, they cannot expect to be accorded the same rights as those who fall into the requirements of the contract. (New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom “Redefining the Meaning of Marriage”). It is not going to be difficult for gay couples to have the same rights and privileges as a married couple without having the benefit of marriage. In this day and age wherein every single movement and act of a person needs to be bound by a contract or legal agreement, gay couples can easily assign married couple rights to each other using the stroke of a pen and the stamp of a notary public. It becomes unquestionable and incontestable under the law. A simple power of attorney, notarized last will and testament, signed medical healthcare directive, or other legal documents can be used in place of default marriage privileges under the law. They do not need to insist on redefining marriage in order to have these rights. Nobody is stopping them from adopting children either. They can have the kind of family they want. They can lead the life that they want. All we ask of the gay couples is that they do not mess with tradition by trying to change centuries of history and social stability for their own selfish means. Therefore, it is not really necessary to allow same sex marriages in California. There is just too much at stake for such a whimsical law to be enacted. Gay couples have options, their relationship are recognized by the state with equal rights as married couples, there is nothing more they should want or even need at this point. Works Cited Ferguson, A. (2007), Gay Marriage: An American and Feminist Dilemma. Hypatia, 22: 39–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2007.tb01148.x Hansen, Trayce. “Love Isn't Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same Sex Marriage Will Harm Our Children”. 15 Oct. 2007. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. League of Women Voters. “Proposition 8”. Nov. 2008. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. Messerli, Joe. “Should Same Sex Marriage Be Legalized?”. 19 Nov. 2011. Web. 22. Nov. 2011. New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. “Redefining the Meaning of Marriage”. 13 Oct. 2010). Web. 20 Nov. 2011. “Questions & Answers About Proposition 8”. n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2011. Sharp, Joshua. “4 Reasons Why california Banned Gay Marriage Again”. 6 Nov. 2008. Web. 23 Nov. 2011. Somerville, Margaret. “The Case Against Same Sex Marriage”. 29 Apr. 2003. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. Read More