On Jan. 17, the Vatican issued a statement compelling Catholic politicians to oppose laws permitting, among other things, same-sex marriages. Whether homosexual marriages should be legal has long been a question in American politics. The morality of same-sex marriages and homosexual behavior is often debated, but the question that is seldom asked is this: Should this be a question of morality or of basic political and legal equality?
There's nothing wrong with being religious or holding values based in a religious framework like the Catholic politicians to which the Pope is referring probably do. However, it is not OK to make exclusionary policies based in these values.
There is a line between living your life by your religious code and forcing that code on others via legislation. Prohibiting same-sex marriages forces many people to live their lives by a moral code that is not theirs, and demanding that they do so is about as just as the idea of prayer in public schools.
Prohibiting same-sex marriages is an unjust policy. John Rawls, a philosopher and Harvard professor, describes his concept of the veil of ignorance in his \Theory of Justice.""
Rawls' theory begins with a theoretical situation in which everyone society is stripped of the knowledge of their social status, wealth, job and other such characteristics. Everyone behind this veil of ignorance would agree to live by two principles--""... the first requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities ... are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society.""
Obviously, it is not wise to create laws that are unfair or disadvantage any group of people in the society, since there is no way to know who you will be in the resulting society. Would it be wise to deny same-sex marriages in this philosophical framework? No, because it could turn out that you wouldn't have the right to marry. It also violates one of the two principles, since the social inequality that results does not provide compensatory benefits to anyone.
Denying homosexual couples the right to marry also violates the spirit of political equality. In America, we believe that everyone has the right to equal opportunities, and our government is designed to protect this concept. Banning same-sex marriages denies people the same opportunities as others--there are many financial benefits that are attached only to marriage, such as the tax benefits proposed in President Bush's new economic plan.
According to an article about the plan in the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 8, ""The effects of the plan on individual taxpayers will vary dramatically based on income, marital status and whether the taxpayer has young children. Single filers with no dependents get the least, Barry said. For instance, a married couple with two children and $50,000 in gross income is likely to get a $1,133 tax cut, while a single filer with the same income would save about $326 in taxes."" Same-sex couples are denied the opportunity to marry and receive such benefits.
A phrase that almost all Americans are familiar with from one of the most revered of American documents, the Declaration of Independence says, ""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."" Refusing a couple the right to marry and the benefits that come with it surely interferes with their pursuit of happiness, and regardless of the moral question that some may have about same-sex marriage, no one has the right to legally deny people their unalienable rights.
