Though most Americans support equal rights for homosexuals, 60 percent also oppose same-sex marriage. There are no good reasons to ban same-sex marriage. Arguments in favor of such a ban rest on either false premises or simple prejudice. On the contrary, there are several good reasons to support gay marriage, the most basic of which are simple equality and the practical value of martial union.
Same-sex marriage is a good thing for the same reason that heterosexual marriage is a good thing-loving, consenting adults making life commitments are the foundation of society. Spouses work together, establish homes together, pay taxes together, make medical decisions together, raise children together and, at the very end, inherit property from each other. Gay and straight alike live these experiences.
True, there is the issue of childbearing. Homosexuals cannot produce children. But then, neither can barren straight couples, yet we don't revoke their marriage licenses. Marriage is about children to be sure, but it is about far more than the ability to conceive. Repeated scientific studies have shown that same-sex couples who do have children raise them every bit as well as their straight counterparts.
Marriage helps maintain love and commitment within families. It unites heterosexual couples now, and would surely do the same for same-sex couples. Indeed, when Denmark legalized same-sex marriage, it led to a reduction in suicide, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, promiscuity and infidelity among homosexuals. Enshrining the marital commitment in law made same-sex couples healthier and society stronger.
On the other hand, every argument against same-sex marriage fails. The most common argument is that marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman, and such longstanding tradition should not be altered. But this is simply false-the meaning of marriage has changed.
At the time of America's founding, marriage was between a man and his possession. As recently as the late 1960s, in some states, marriage was between a white man and a white woman. If marriage can be altered to allow one woman autonomy, why can't it be altered to allow two women equality? If marriage can be altered to include two consenting adults regardless of race, why can't it be altered to include two consenting adults regardless of sex? No one today would oppose interracial marriage on the ground that it wasn't \traditional."" Marriage as an institution has changed over time, and the definition of the word has changed to keep up with it. It can do so again.
Given the protean nature of marriage, some argue that in time it might expand to include all manner of perversions. Perhaps some day men will want to marry not just other men, but also robots, porpoises, the family dog and a whole tribe of pygmies, say opponents of same-sex marriage. This is absurd on its face. Marriage is about the union of two people. Same-sex marriage is about allowing any person to become one of those two. It is not about expanding marriage to include nonhuman entities or increasing the number of people in a marriage.
A man can commit his life to another man. A dog cannot. An unreasonable fear that man might, at some vague future time, marry man's best friend is surely no reason to discriminate against gays now. Similarly, American homosexuals, like straight men and women, tend to form two-person, monogamous relationships. Same-sex marriage would not open the door to polygamy any more than interracial marriage did.
Finally, civil unions are not good enough. Civil unions keep homosexuals separate while allowing them to be ""equal."" I hardly need dwell on the checkered history of this doctrine to note that separate is seldom, if ever, equal. Further, granting some adults a pale imitation of marriage while others get the real thing can only undermine the notion of marriage itself.
Marriage is more than a legal contract. Suggesting that civil unions are just as good as marriage implies that straight people might pursue civil unions themselves. After all, they're just as good as the real thing. Now that would be a real threat to the institution of marriage. Suggesting that civil unions are not as good as marriage, and that's just what homosexuals deserve, is outright bigotry. Only real marriage for same-sex couples promotes equality and civil rights while supporting the institution for all.
Josh Gildea is a third-year law student who can be reached at
opinion@dailycardinal.com. His column runs every Wednesday in
The Daily Cardinal.
