Marriage: The Next Civil Right

You've met the love of your life; the two of you decide that you want to spend the rest of your lives together. As a couple, you want to show your fidelity to each other more than anything else. Marriage seems to be the next logical step. However, something is standing in the way of the blessed union you seek: the law does not recognize the union of two persons of the same gender.

According to the essay "Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron," by Lisa Schiffren, same sex marriage is undesirable for many reasons. Same sex marriage is not undesirable when we remember the foundation on which marriage is to be based. Comparison between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage are as ineffective as comparison of two individuals. No two marriages and no two individuals are the same. There is not a good reason to ban same-sex marriage and therefore, it should be legalized.

Ongoing in the United States, is a trend of battles over same-sex marriage. In recent years, various states have been examining the legal definition of marriage for the purpose of coming to a decision about same-sex marriage. Marriage is defined differently by numerous states. Marriage according to Schiffren is "a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring." (32) Inclusion of same-sex partners in the legal definition of marriage follows a trend of society becoming more liberal. The interpretation of freedom changed over the years and across country to become more inclusive, as such the interpretation of marriage should follow.

Schiffren paints a picture of homosexuality that comes across as synonymous with promiscuity with her mention of the spread of AIDS in the homosexual population. She asks, "how a "piece of paper" will do what threat of AIDS has not."(33) Not taken into account here is the differences between people. Sure, there are people who do not appreciate the sincerity required to maintain a marriage. This can be seen of all people not just of those of homosexual orientation. If that were the case, there would never be a heterosexual union ended because of adultery. All people have a different measure of capability of faithfulness to their partner. While this is an interesting point for research, it makes a correlation between two unrelated ideas. The purpose of marriage is not to reduce promiscuity, nor to reduce the spread of AIDS. However, it is possible that both of those would occur should same-sex marriage be legalized.

During that same argument, Schiffren asks, "What will keep gay marriages together when individuals tire of each other?" (33) Seemingly referring back to her own definition of marriage as a union meant for creation and nurture of offspring, Schiffren assumes that homosexual couples will not have nor want children. It seems as though Schiffren is saying that homosexuals, in general, do not want children. Again, an interesting topic for research, but nothing supports the statement that fewer homosexual couples want children as compared to their heterosexual counterparts. One validation to this point is the actual creation of children; it can be said that those homosexual couples who do not desire children won't have them. Of course, the same can't necessarily be said for heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples who wish to have children are required to either create those offspring with the inclusion of a third party. This third party may be another partner, fertility clinic, or adoption agency.

Based on the inclusion of a third party one may intuitively say that these couples are more serious about raising a family. In the adoption process the couple or in some cases a single partner must apply for the ability to adopt. This screening process, in a sense, forces the couple to examine their motives for wanting to adopt. Adoption is not a short process nor is it an easy one. In many cases, it may take longer to adopt a child than it would for a couple to have a child naturally. The inclusion of many third parties to the adoption is, in a manner of speaking, a way to assure that the parent-to-be is fit and committed. The same cannot be said for those who conceive on their own. Only after a child has been harmed is the fitness of the parent examined. While the screening will not necessarily eliminate those who wouldn't be "fit" parents, the system is in place partially for that purpose.

Another argument used by opponents to same-sex marriage is that it will make a mockery of the union. The opposed argue that marriage is meant to be a sacred union for the purpose of mutual exclusivity, legal and spiritual bond. However, none of these intuitively requires that the partners be of opposite gender. Legalization of same-sex marriage does not lesson the sanctity of any other marriage. Tangentially, opponents may say that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to those in platonic relationships to get married in order to receive the perks of being a legalized couple. This absolutely could happen, but at the same time, it can happen now with heterosexual couples. Plain and simple if people want to marry for the wrong reason, they will. Poor judgment in regards to marriage is a possibility for everyone not just homosexuals. It does in effect bring into question the idea of common law marriage. This is a valid concern, and one that will need to be addressed once it comes into question.

Additionally, the legalization of same-sex marriage would cause a negative effect on the economy, or so say the opponents. The additional marriages that would occur because of same-sex marriage wouldn't cause any more strain on the economy than if every person married into a heterosexual relationship. Those who are involved in homosexual relationships are not doing it because of any lacking in members of the opposite sex. So saying that there would be more marriages if we allowed same-sex marriage is preposterous. The world is not simply pairing up for marriages. There is far more to a marriage than a couple of people who live together. Yes, in the most traditional views on marriage it is a bonding of a man and a woman together for the purpose of creating a new life together. However, two men or two women could just as easily be bonded together for the same purpose. Marriage is in many ways about finding the person who is a partner in every sense of the word. A partner is someone who joins in finding common ground on which to build a life, to help you learn who you are and, to experience the joys and turmoil of life.

An additional argument against same-sex marriage is religious beliefs. Some will argue that their religion does not permit a same-sex union. In fact, there may not be a religion that does permit such a thing. Another thing that most if not all religions don't permit is the judgment of man by another man. The duty of man is not to pass judgment on his brothers; most religions reserve that duty upon their higher power.

Schiffren says, that society would not respond positively to such a radical change in such a central institution. The change in that is being suggested as radical is a fairly simple one. The adjustment requited in allowing same-sex marriage simply allows for the inclusion of recognition of all types of partnerships. Such an inclusion should strengthen society by allowing for more people to express their feelings to one another. It could be said that this would lead to a happier society, because people would feel more open to expressing themselves. An inclusive society is inherently a happier society, because all members are free to express and experience different things. The freedom to marry as one sees fit is a freedom that harms no one.

Finally, the individualism that is encouraged in the United States has in part lead to this revelation surrounding same-sex marriage. People throughout history have fought for the right to vote, the right to freedom, and equality in general. Each battle has come with its own opponents; this one should be no different. This battle should be easily won as it affects those of all races, genders, religions, and economic backgrounds. Unlike the fight of African Americans for freedom and women's fight for voting rights which mostly affected only that one race, and one gender. The fact that so many are affected should lead to an easier resolution; however, it also leads to more people having strong opinions about it. Despite most people fighting for freedom there are those who insist that there isn't a right to choose freely a life partner.

In conclusion, there is no reason to keep people from engaging in same-sex marriages. Marriage is in some views a legal right, if it's not a legal right it may well fall into the right to happiness. The legal definition does not specifically include any principles that require those entering into the agreement be of opposite sex. Those who argue that the spread of disease is in part caused by homosexual's promiscuity make an argument for same-sex marriage. It's not necessarily a nice argument but it does speak to the prevention of the spread of disease. People have the right to have happiness and pursue it in the best way known to them. Same-sex marriage does not hurt anyone involved or not involved in the union. Social and economic, and religious beliefs are behind most arguments. However, none of these gives a solid reason for the prevention of any such union. One of the most basic rights is that to happiness. No one should be standing in the way of another's happiness, as long as getting the happiness sought doesn't hurt anyone. Loving and sharing a life with your partner does not hurt anyone as long as people are allowed to keep their private lives private.

Works Cited

Schiffren, Lisa. "Gay Marriage, An Oxymoron." Contemporary and Classic Arguments. A Portable Anthology. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston, 2005. 32-34.