Legalization of Gay Marriages: Social Benefits and Resources - Research Paper Example

Abstract Morality and justice are among the most problematic human issues. Not only do individuals differ in their perceptions of morality and justice, but the strategies designed to maintain a reasonable level of equality and fairness are dramatically different. This paper discusses the issue of gay marriages and the state’s status quo regarding the ban on same-sex marriages. The issues of justice and various views on justice are discussed. The paper provides reasons and arguments in defense of the position that legalizing gay marriages is the best way to promote justice in society. Recommendations on how to achieve justice are provided. Moral Questions and Theory Morality and justice are among the most controversial human issues. First, different individuals hold different perceptions about justice and morality; therefore, the ideas and theories of justice are dramatically varied. Second, the strategies and recommendations to achieve and maintain a reasonable level of justice in society are equally sophisticated and complex. Therefore, it is not always possible to help the society to pursue its moral ends. Gay marriage is among the principal objects of the moral debate in present day world. To marry or not to marry is the question contemporary society tries but cannot answer. Most states have adopted a status quo with regard to same-sex marriages and couples; as a result of this status quo, these couples are bound to experience discrimination and accept an inferior social position, compared with their heterosexual counterparts. This status quo is unjust, because same-sex couples can achieve the same level of fidelity and loyalty as heterosexual couples do. They deserve to have social benefits and want to have children. Apparently, it is high time new strategies were adopted to move gay couples to a new quality level of their social performance: gay marriages must become a legal and acceptable form of promoting equal rights and liberties in society. Gay Marriages: A Tragic Status Quo To legalize or not to legalize gay marriages remains one of the most painful topics of legal, social, and religious discussion. More often than not, same-sex couples resemble a thorn in the society’s side, and this debate does not seem to be even close to its logical resolution. Objectively, such attitudes toward same-sex marriages in a democratic society are not surprising. That the government seeks to preserve the status quo in marriage is justified by the belief that legalization of gay marriages will break the balance of heterosexual family values in traditional societies (Religious Tolerance, 2009). When Hawaii attempted to legalize same-sex marriages, the government expressed its indignation with the decision, stating that “the historical and time-honored protection of traditional marriage as the fundamental structure in Hawaiian society that advances basic societal goals and values” (Religious Tolerance, 2009). It should be noted, that Hawaii are just one out of many examples of public intolerance toward gays and their desire to have a family and be married officially. Until today, thousands of homosexuals had to hide behind the veil of fake heterosexual marriages with men and women they never loved. The current state of law does not provide homosexual couples with a legal right to get married; and even if they can make their relations official, the scope of the social and other benefits, which heterosexual families traditionally have, is increasingly scarce. The state chose a convenient position regarding the issue of gay marriages. The state claims that the future of gay marriages and rights is in legal courts (Davis, 2010). Simultaneously, courts refuse to take a position on the debate, as long as such position will deny the relevance of the court as the source of equal rights and positions for everyone (Seidman, 2008). However, while governments are trying to preserve their position for traditional marriage and against gay couples, such situation continues being unjust – unjust toward those, who want to get married and equally unjust toward the rest of heterosexual society. Same-sex couples are not accepted and recognized by the society’s majority. They experience discrimination and the lack of social support. They are destined to hide their relations, fearing public condemnation and even abuse. They are fated to fall victims to the absence of morality and justice in the society, to which they belong. Such status quo is unjust, because gay couples exist and will exist in the future, and the absence of recognition does not automatically mean the absence of gay couples and relationships as such. A society that promotes justice will need to finally recognize gay couples as an indispensable component of its moral and social stability. To make this argument more compelling, a brief insight into justice needs to be provided. So, What About Justice? What is justice has long been the object of a hot philosophic debate. Dozens of theories were created to explain what justice is, how it works, and what implications it has for the future of the whole human race. Needless to say, individual perceptions of justice are varied. Most people associate the meaning of justice with that of fairness. Despite the multitude of theories and beliefs about justice, John Rawls’ principles of justice seem to be the most relevant, efficient, and comprehensible. They also fit in the contemporary conditions of social performance and can support the society in its movement toward accepting gay rights. In his argument about justice, Rawls refers to the concept of self-interest and human rationality. In his book, Rawls (1971) argued that self-interested individuals, who chose to hide themselves beyond the veil of ignorance, would pursue two principal forms of justice. First, they would perceive justice as the instrument that provides all individuals with equal liberties (Rawls, 1971). Simply stated, justice is the situation, in which “each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatibly with similar liberties for all” (Rawls, 1971). Consequentially, and in light of the gay marriage debate, same-sex couples deserve a legal right to be married and access the social resources and benefits traditionally available to heterosexual married couples. Second, justice cannot deny or eliminate the existing social inequalities, but these inequalities must be arranged in ways that create the greatest benefit for the most disadvantaged individuals (Rawls, 1971). Rawls (1971) is confident that inequalities are relevant only to the extent, which empowers a few people to become leaders of the justice strategies and actions. In this situation, it is obvious that contemporary leaders must finally take a stand and move toward changing the existing status quo, giving gay individuals the right to get married. This is the best way to ensure that all social resources are equally distributed and fairly protected. Rawls’ vision of justice is, to some extent, in tune with Hospers’ beliefs about libertarianism and its effects on the development of just relations in the society. According to Hospers (1999), “every person is the owner of his own life, and no one is the owner of anyone else’s life […] consequentially, every human being has the right to act in accordance with his own choices, unless those actions infringe on the equal liberty of other human beings to act in accordance with their own choices”. Based on these beliefs and assumptions, justice is something that guarantees equal distribution of available social resources between individuals and provides them with the legal right to pursue their ends within the limits that do not infringe on the liberties and rights of other society members. In this sense, promotion and legalization of gay rights is the direct pathway to promoting justice in any democratic society. First, legalization of gay marriages and the changes in the current status quo will provide all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, with equal individual and social rights (the right to get married). Second, “legalization of same-sex marriages with also provide homosexual individuals with the legal right to access and use the social resources which they, themselves create by being the members of this society” (LaSala, 2007). Third, in no way does legalization of marriages infringe on other people’s freedoms, rights, and decisions. Finally, legalization seems the only way to combat the existing discrimination against homosexual individuals and create an atmosphere of fairness in a truly democratic society. These, however, are not the only reasons why legalization of gay marriages paves the way to justice. Gay Marriage and Justice: From the Social Benefits to Family Formation In the United States, as well as in other developed countries, the fact of marriage is an effective source of numerous privileges for those, who are married. Under the U.S. Constitution, for example, married people are given an opportunity to be covered by their spouse’s insurance or to inherit his (her) Social Security benefits (LaSala, 2007). In addition, the fact of inheritance, whether in terms of Social Security benefits, personal assets, or pension resources, occurs without excessive taxation (LaSala, 2007). Married people are given a privileged position, while taking health decisions for their spouses who are no longer able to do so (LaSala, 2007). They have a legal right to refuse from testifying against each other in courts and can initiate litigation and investigation of their spouse’s death, which they consider wrongful (LaSala, 2007). Ultimately, the mere fact of being married is the sign of being “normal” – the married status of a person is the source of numerous social an private connotations, from being mature enough to take reasonable decisions to the ability to assume responsibility for the family and its members’ future. All these norms, privileges, and beliefs have been created by the democratic society and its members, regardless of their race, sexual orientation, and age; and it is extremely unjust that the values and privileges, created by all, are being accessed and used by a few heterosexual couples. Legalization of gay marriage and the subsequent changes in the current status quo are necessary for justice, as long as they erase the homo-hetero-sexual social divide and expand the range of the social benefits available to them. In a just society, marriage cannot be a privilege but must be a norm. It must be available to anyone, who wants to get married. The state must grant homosexual married couples the full range of social benefits and merits, which heterosexual couples currently have. This is the best way to distribute limited resources, which are being created by everyone, including same-sex individuals and couples. Marriage is a form of family formation, which must be available and accessible to everyone. Justice entails the provision of the equal family formation rights and privileges, irrespective of gender and sexual orientation. Like their heterosexual counterparts, homosexual couples want to have families and be parents. Parenting in same-sex couples is equally strong and even stronger than that in heterosexual individuals (Anonymous, 2010). Statistical analysis shows that more than 50% of gay men in the United States express their willingness to adopt a child (Anonymous, 2010). Surprisingly or not, but only 41% of lesbian couples have a desire to have a child (Anonymous, 2010). However, while lesbian couples, due to their physiological features, are capable of having one or more child, male same-sex couples find it extremely difficult to create a full family (Anonymous, 2010). In the meantime, millions of orphans are waiting for a chance to be adopted and live a happy life. Justice means that (a) individuals have equal access to liberties and resources, which they collectively create and (b) that can pursue happiness and satisfaction within the limits, which do not infringe on the rights and liberties of others. Same-sex couples claim that to have children for them means to find satisfaction and happiness in life (Anonymous, 2010). Given that the fact of adopting a child by a same-sex couple does not infringe the rights of anyone but creates an atmosphere of happiness and satisfaction for the heterosexual individuals and adopted children, this is how justice can be pursued. This is also the way to let same-sex married couples to use their legal rights for parenthood. Ultimately, the legalization of same-sex marriages is not simply the way to access social benefits, resources, and exercise the fullest scope of individual rights, but it is also an instrument of reducing and denying privileges to those, who use them unfairly. More often, these privileges are being discussed in the context of tax exemptions and advantages, which heterosexual couples possess over homosexual couples. For example, heterosexual married couples extensively utilize the principles of joint-return filing and income splitting, to avoid excessive taxation (Seto, 2008). Homosexual couples, due to their inferior status, are unable to utilize these privileges and are bound to cope with numerous financial difficulties. Even the taxation system does not favor the implementation of the new homosexual marriage norms and holds a promise of protecting the traditionality of heterosexual marriages in the long run. At this point, the notion of justice extends beyond simple legalization of gay marriages and extends further, to cover the list of privileges and benefits which married couples can access and use. A society that promotes justice and wants to live in peace and freedom of self-realization must adopt a new system of measures, which will not permit married couples, based on their sexual orientation, to avoid fair taxation. Legalization of gay marriages is just, as long as it creates a foundation for developing efficient systems of income distribution and recognizes heterosexual and homosexual families as the equal participants of the state taxation system. Changing the Status Quo: Justice and What Can Be Done The only question is in what can be done to change the existing status quo and provide gay individuals with an opportunity to create a society of justice and fairness. Certainly, the legalization of gay marriages as such is the initial step toward maintaining an atmosphere of justice in any society. Legalization of gay marriages marks the recognition of the gay individual’s rights to be married and create a family. Through the prism of Rawls’ theory of justice, legalization of gay marriages is the act, which ensures that every individual has and can exercise the basic set of individual rights compatible with the rights of all. Based on Hospers’ position, legalization of gay marriages also means that individuals have freedom to pursue the ends of happiness and satisfaction without infringing on the rights and freedoms of other individuals. Legalization, however, is only the first step toward changing the status quo and adopting a new policy of justice and fairness in society. Present day society grants its members the right to be parents and adopt children. Married gay couples, especially male couples, need to have the right to adopt and grow up children. This decision has far-reaching implications for justice. First, parenthood is an indispensable component of human and social performance – it is the basic precondition for maintain social stability in society. Second, gay couples, like their heterosexual counterparts, want to grow up children: in a just society, they deserve to have this right, as long as it does not limit other society members in their freedoms and decisions. Children also have the right to have parents and lead a self-fulfilling life, and giving gay couples a legal right to be parents will reinforce the sense of justice in society. In general, legalization of gay marriages is the direct pathway toward creating a social system, which “is eligible for direct public support for its role in social reproduction” (Bell, 2009). Third, the principles, privileges, and taxation decisions regarding marriage need to be reconsidered. The creation of social benefits is a collective process, and homosexual individuals participate in this process on equal terms with their heterosexual counterparts. In this situation, to promote justice in society means to (a) provide all married couples, irrespective of their sexual orientation, with equal social benefits, including health care insurance and health decisions, and (b) ensure that homosexual and heterosexual couples are imposed similar taxation principles and requirements. Homosexual couples do not deserve to be “allowed to pay lower federal taxes than heterosexual married couples” (Seto, 2008). Simultaneously, heterosexual couples do not have the right for tax exemptions which are associated with their heterosexual married status. These steps will create an atmosphere of justice and fairness and establish the sense of equality concerning gay rights. Conclusion To marry or not to marry remains the issue of the primary concern in homosexual circles. The state has adopted a status quo concerning the legal ban on gay marriages and does not seem willing to change it. However, such status quo is increasingly unjust toward gay couples and the society in general. Justice means individual ability to exercise his (her) rights to the fullest, within the limits that do not infringe on other individuals’ rights but let them pursue their ends. The right to get married is an indispensable component of any society that wants to live in justice. Legalization of gay marriages will grant homosexual couples the right to access and use social benefits and resources, which are being created collectively. Legalization will give homosexual couples the right to be parents and grow up happy children. Gay marriages will pursue justice and fairness, as long as they will promote fair redistribution of the social resources among married couples, irrespective of their sexual orientation. Finally, it is the only way to recognize the value of marriage as one of the most important social institutions. References Anonymous. (2010). Homosexuality and family formation. The Futurist, May-June, 5-7. Bell, M.C. (2009). Valuing all families. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 5, 288-316. Davis, L. (2010). Outlook: Gay marriage fate rests in courts of law, public opinion. Yahoo News. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2627 Hospers, J. (1999). The Libertarian Manifesto. In J.P. Sterba, Justice: Alternative political perspectives. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 24. LaSala, M.C. (2007). Too many eggs in the wrong basket: A queer critique of the same-sex marriage movement. Social Work, 52(2), 181-183. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. Religious Tolerance. (2009). Seven more reasons why they are undesirable (with rebuttals). Religious Tolerance. Retrieved from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint4.htm Seidman, L.M. (2008). Gay sex and marriage, the reciprocal disadvantage problem, and the crisis in liberal constitutional theory. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 31(1), 135-150. Seto, T.P. (2008). The unintended tax advantages of gay marriage. Washington and Lee Law Review, 65(4), 1529-1592. Read More