It's My Sex Life! Get Out! Why a Private Life Should Be Allowed to Stay Private

No one should be able to, or even feel they are able to, make laws about what consenting adults decide to do in privacy. All Americans hold three things dear to them; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the last meaning everyone should be allowed to do what makes them happy - provided that it does not infringe upon the rights of others. There is an entire political group, known as libertarians, who oppose laws restricting consensual or personal behavior. One important distinction that is often not made by opponent of same-sex marriage is the difference between things that are harmful and those that are not.

An adult that is capable of consenting, in America, is generally eighteen years old and with full decision-making capabilities. While consent is defined as permission; only an adult can truly consent to any thing. Many in politics, usually conservatives, believe that it is appropriate to legislate what these consenting adults can do, but it is not appropriate to legislate intensely personal, and somewhat religious, matters, such as marriage. According to Sean Cahill, author of "The Case for Marriage Equality", marriage also "aims to promote healthy families by protecting the economic and emotional interdependence of family members and giving priority to their bonds. Gay couples have the same needs as opposite sex couples..." (p1). Not only is denying same-sex couples inappropriate, it is also denying a couple the fiscal and societal support that opposite-sex couples automatically receive, especially in the case of the death of one of the partners (p2).

Nowhere in the Constitution is the power to make laws concerning the private, sexual choices of any adults. Since that power is not given to the federal or state government it falls into the catch-all; any powers not specifically given to the state or federal government belong to the people. As one of "the people" I expect the right to choose my own sexuality, how I express it, and with whom; while receiving the same rights and benefits as everyone else. This is not unreasonable. If all men (meaning people) are created equal then all must be treated equally and therefore receive equal treatment from all levels of government. This is an idealistic view, but America is an idealistic nation, America was founded on the idea that every person ought to have equal weight and say in government and then be represented by a person they have chosen. In this country, idealism is not a dirty word, nor should an idea be dismissed because it is considered idealist or naïve.

There are several grounds on which people, who tend to be conservatives, argue for laws legislating bedroom behavior. One of the foremost is that opening marriage to all couples will make marriage less meaningful and devalue the sanctity of marriage and the family. James Dobson, from Focus on the Family, has been quoted as saying "Pataki [Governor of New York State] diluted the definition of 'family' by giving gay partners the same access to terrorist relief benefits that married couples have" (p4). By forcing certain (same-sex) couples to live without being able to be married does more to devalue marriage than anything else, as do the "acceptable" short and usually not monogamous marriages of celebrities. Same-sex couples have been fighting for many years to merely obtain the same rights that are automatically given to every other couple that conservatives define as correct, meaning one man and one woman. This definition is clearly unfair, but further than that, these people have absolutely no right to arbitrarily decide whose lifestyle is "right" and whose is "wrong." One of the most important ideals the Constitution upholds and the government is supposed to uphold is each person's individual freedoms, the only real restriction on personal freedoms comes into play when a person's actions infringe upon the rights of others. Allowing two people of the same gender to marry does not infringe upon the rights of anyone.

Some of the most outstanding attacks come from groups that are considered the religious right. After the tragedy of 9/11 partners of those killed were allowed to receive survivor benefits. Outrageously, Robert Knight, the director of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute, accused the surviving partners of "trying to hijack the moral capital of marriage and apply it to their own relationships" (p4). Even more insulting was Lou Sheldon, from The Traditional Values Coalition, accusing "gay activists of 'taking advantage' of the national tragedy to promote their agenda." Sheldon stated that he believed that relieve assistance should be "given on the basis and priority of one man and one woman in a marital relationship" (p4). Yet another member of a religion-based group, the Family Research Council, is Peter Sprigg, who also threw out his accusation of gay people as "taking advantage of the grief and compassion that Americans feel..." (p5). Sadly, the government agreed with these right-wing conservatives and did not carry the policy of treating same-sex partners who have lost their partner the same as opposite-sex couples forward; that only applied for those killed in the 9/11 attacks.

Allowing two men or two women to have the same legal standing in marriage as one man and one woman is entirely reasonable. The unreasonable thing is to believe that it is acceptable to impose one's religious beliefs or prejudices upon another person or use those beliefs and prejudices to create government policies. No one's prejudices should be allowed in the bedroom of consenting adults: be it two women, two men, a heterosexual couple, or even polygamists. These people are all considered adults, they can sign contracts, they can vote for their leaders, and they can choose who they want to spend their life with and how.

Works Cited
Cahill, Sean. "The Case for Marriage Equality." Signs of Life In the USA. Bedford/St. Martin's. 2003.