The Issues of Same-Sex Marriage and Moral Decay - Essay Example

The Need to Legalize Same Sex Marriage The Need to Legalize Same Sex Marriage The debate over what sort of marriages ought tobe legalized continues to spark mixed reactions in the contemporary society. People hold varied views that they support from religious, ethical, or legal perspectives. Regardless of the perspectives from which people argue their points, both sides of debaters ought to have a common bottom line on human equality. There is need to appreciate differences between personalities, social, ethical, and religious views while engaging in the debate but respect the fact that all people are equal and deserve equal treatment. Notably, proponents of same sex marriages appreciate the rights of heterosexual couples. Surprisingly, the opponents of same sex marriages express strong opinions and refutations against the gay marriages for instance. It is important that both sides appreciate that different people have different ideologies and perceptions regarding the marriage union. This paper will show that same sex marriages, specifically gay marriages, ought to be legalized just as heterosexual marriages legal. Legalizing both types of marriages warrants a harmonious society. To a significant proportion of the society, the question whether couples in a same sex marriage relationship deserve same matrimonial benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples is a question of civil rights. The constitutional concepts on this subject require that same sex couples be treated like heterosexual couples. A significant percentage of the society members, however hold a different perception on the matter based on religious and ethical values (Card, 2007). They perceive of same sex marriage as a vice that violates traditional ethics and risks undermining family values. Seemingly, opponents of same sex marriage seem to argue based on their religious teachings and ethical values that may not have significance to the whole society. They fail to note that these values and teachings vary from society to society and are subject to change with time (Greene, 2009). To a significant percentage of people constituting the American society, the religious aspect is a crucial aspect to their conception of the marriage institution. Therefore, it is expected that religious opinions feature and hence influence the opinion of most people regarding the subject. Such people fail to appreciate that various scholars and judges have shown that as long as the controversial issue is restrained within civil marriage, then religious views or perceptions are void and immaterial. The impression is that marriage has nothing to do with religion when viewed from the civil perspective. In any case, not all people cling to such religious beliefs. Such people, therefore, cannot be judged based on religious grounds (Card, 2007). Further, people differ in opinion regarding the definition of the marriage union. Some view it as a union fulfilled by bearing children while others perceive of the same as a union characterized by romance between two individuals who share common benefits of domestic life. Often, faith based organizations have been vocal in preaching against hatred. They however fail to defend rights of people who hold views that contradicting their religious beliefs. For instance, religions being the main opponents to gay marriage refute the subject because of their perception that a marriage union ought to be one that is fulfilled by procreation. This perception, however, is different from the revisionist view that marriage entails a romantic relationship between two people with common benefits of domestic life. Bearing children is not important to this second group probably because they have a different view of the marriage union (Eskridge, 2010). Couples engaging in marriage often seek to show the community and the society that they commit themselves to the union of marriage. There is no point in denying such a right to same sex couples since they have the desire and will to commit themselves legally. In fact, this is a basic right for couples that heterosexual couples tend to take for granted. It would be surprising how same-sex couples intent to be serious in committing themselves to their marriage. All that is necessary is to grant same sex couples the legal right to marry (Eskridge, 2010). With that, the rights of the couples will be protected legally. This was appreciated by Hawaii’s Supreme Court in 1993 after it ruled that restrictions on same sex marriage was unconstitutional unless the state showed that there was a further compelling state interest (Sider, 2011). The separate but equal concept is highly refutable and undesirable in the contemporary society. Just as the heterosexual couples are granted marriage rights, same sex couples should be appreciated as married couples and not people in civil unions. Notably, civil unions or domestic partnerships are not alternatives to marriage. The former lack legal certainty and universal recognition. Arguing from the point that people have the right to engage in a relations of their own interest, it is necessary that people engaging in same sex marriage deserve equal recognition (Sider, 2011). With that, same sex married couples will have the capacity to seek legal protection against abusive relationships. The society must appreciate that failure to recognize same sex couples exposes them to the danger of abuse in their relationships. All human beings inherit equal human rights regardless of their race, residence, religion, gender, ethnicity, language, nationality, or any other status. All people are entitled to these rights without discrimination. The rights that are interdependent, interrelated, and indivisible are protected by various constitutional amendments. Remarkably, the human rights do not only cover economic or political rights but also their rights to security, freedom, liberty, and property. The freedom of expression and freedom of worship are also important aspects of human rights despite being widely abused in the contemporary society. Same sex marriage falls in the category of freedom of expression (McVeigh, 2009). This is because people engaging in such relationships express their feelings towards each other. Denying that amounts to denying the right of expression and hence abuse of human rights. The law should never be a tool to abuse human rights but to protect them by legalizing same sex marriages (Card, 2007). A close historical follow up of gay rights shows significant prejudice against homosexuals. The same prejudice has persisted for a long time until to date when people are fighting for same sex marriage rights. Homosexuals exist for both cases because the term refers to those attracted to people of their own gender. Earliest homosexuals included Julius Caesar, Alexander the great, and Plato among many others (Greene, 2009). All along, this group of people has been discriminated against, denied equal treatment, and exposed to violence because of their sexual orientation. The society has in the past gone as far as decriminalizing homosexuality on the basis that people engage in the same at their own discretion. This depicts homosexuals and hence people in same sex marriages as criminals, which is wrong and deceitful (Eskridge, 2010). Homosexuals and people in same sex marriage unions are not criminals hence deserve legal recognition and protection. For a long time, homosexuals and people of good will have urged the society to cease discriminating against them based on their sexual preferences. Notably, though, homosexuals derive intense inspiration from the African American Human Rights movement pioneered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. this is because homosexuals have had to consider themselves as a minority group. The society ought to appreciate that same sex marriage is an undeveloped phenomena that has not yet gained prominence. It is understood better if compared with voting rights for the blacks or women that were initially considered inappropriate. In fact, the King’s success in fighting for the rights of the blacks is the main inspiration that has led to the rise of Gay rights Movement in America (McVeigh, 2009). Just as the society came to realize that discrimination against the blacks was wrong, people ought to understand that denying same sex marriage rights is also wrong. The latter should be legalized as appropriate without necessarily going through the long path. Americans are still discriminative against homosexuals despite having initiated some mechanisms to decriminalize the same in the 90s. For instance, President Clinton, in 1997, introduced the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in an effort to ensure that homosexuals could serve in the military (Greene, 2009). Surprisingly though, the policy has not removed the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. This is because the policy bars military officials from asking recruits about their sexual preferences. The soldiers, on the other hand, should not tell or revel their sexual preferences if they are homosexuals lest they quit the military. Clearly, homosexuals are limited from legal marriage as long as the ban exists because marring a same sex person amounts to revealing ones sexual preference. The court has shown support to legalization of same sex marriages in various incidences. Other than the Hawaiian Supreme Court, the Vermont Supreme Court passed a decision that same sex couples deserved the same protection and benefits heterosexual couples received under the state law lately in 1999. The decision was made in decision is Baker vs. State case (McVeigh, 2009). This was a remarkable stride in the move towards legalization of same sex marriages although it had some limitations. For instance, the court indicated that state legislatures had to seek for ways of granting same sex couples marriage rights as if they were heterosexual married couples. The court did not imply that same sex marriage was a legal marriage. In my view, all this that has been happening within the court system with regard to same sex marriage are hurdles on the path towards legalization of the same. Opponents to same sex marriages believe that these relationships are against or not to the interests of the state. Now that these relationships do not lead to recreation adds to the community’s tax base hence there is no incentive for the state to recognize them. Some heterosexual couples are incapable of raising any child because of either health conditions or age (McVeigh, 2009). Worse still, some heterosexual couples deliberately decide not to procreate yet they enjoy these benefits. As much as such heterosexual couples enjoy all the legal rights, protection, and benefits of couples than same sex couples deserve the same treatment. In any case, none of these has the capability to procreate yet the same sex couples are denied certain incentives (Card, 2007). From a stern personal stance, the states’ and federal failure to hold heterosexual couples accountable to the same standards as their counterparts amounts to discrimination at state and federal levels. Same sex couples wedded legally for the first time in 2004 although the society remains divided over the issue. States such as Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Hampshire have made commendable progress in granting same sex marriage rights. This is an indication that the issue is gradually developing into a fully acceptable phenomena. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage. The main problem is that the society has always stereotyped in their view of same sex couples (McVeigh, 2009). Many other issues have gone through the hard gradual process to acceptance and legalization. For instance, who knew that the society would criticize human slavery during the days of slavery in America? Anyone who has fallen in love whether with a person of the same or opposite sex will confirm that you hardly choose who you love but just do. Those who use religious text to argue against same sex marriage miss the point because of the notion of separating religion from the state. In fact, the government will most likely cease listening to anyone who supports their arguments based on religious teachings (McVeigh, 2009). However, religious texts teach that all people were created equal and none ought to judge others lest they are also judged in return. Clearly, those engaging in same sex marriage deserve no criticism because it is their will and they do not harm the society in any way. They need to feel appreciated which can be done by legalizing their marriages. A personal assessment of the subject reveled that gay marriage is gradually gaining prominence. The impression is that majority of the society members appreciate the position of same sex couples in the society which is commendable. This means that it is time to legalize same sex marriage throughout the states because the society is gradually giving into it (Card, 2007). Furthermore, same sex couples do not cause any harm to the society although homophobes fail to appreciate that. It does not make sense to fight those who do not fight back. It is even illogical to think that marriage ought to involve a man and a woman and be fulfilled with procreation (Greene, 2009). This is a wrong perception of marriage that the society must avoid and legalize same sex marriage for the sake of those attracted to people of their own gender. It is funny how the issue disturbs people who are not involved or engaged in it. In summary, the issues of same sex marriage will continue to spark heated debate in the society until all people appreciate that it is only a developing phenomenon. As illustrated in the preceding sections, same sex marriage does not cause damage to the family unity nor does it cause moral decay. It is a sexual preference that one may choose at their own desecration. Putting restrictions on it amounts to denial of human rights, which is an undesirable. An important observation is that same sex marriage has come a long way. From the time when homosexuals were killed for their sexual preference to a time when some states legalize it. This is an indication that the issue is gradually undergoing the same stages that racial segregation and voting rights went through. Therefore, the society ought to accelerate the legalization process to ensure that same sex couples engage in legal marriage relationships just as is the case with heterosexual marriages. References Card, C. (2007). Gay Divorce. Thoughts on the Legal Regulation of Marriage. Hypatia , 24-38. Eskridge, W. N. (2010). The California Proposition 8 Case: What is a Constitution for?. California LawReview , 1235-1252. Greene, B. (2009). The use and abuse of religious beliefs in dividing and conquering: between socially marginalized groups: the same-sex marriage debate. American Psychologist , 698-709 . McVeigh, R. (2009). Voting to ban Same-Sex Marriage: Interests, Values, and Communities. American Sociological Review , 891-915. Sider, R. (2011). What is Marriage. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy , 245-286. Read More