By Katherine Yaremko
Although Proposition 8, the proposal to ban same sex marriage, passed in Florida, Arizona and California two weeks ago, the issue is still a major source of contention among individuals throughout the country.
In addition to banning gay marriage, Arizona passed legislation preventing homosexual couples from adopting children. I believe the ban is a stain on this nation’s image, a regression toward bigotry and discrimination. Marked by a fear of differences and an unwillingness to bring about change, the passage has shed doubt on America’s ability to progress socially and politically.
The legislation is especially unfortunate following the election of our nation’s first African-American president. If, as a country, we have progressed far enough to have begun stitching the divisions in America’s political and social fabric, then what can honestly be said of our progress concerning the support for Proposition 8? How can America claim it supports equality when a percentage of its citizens are being treated as second-class individuals?
The realization of full equality cannot be accomplished merely with civil unions, however. While I acknowledge and greatly respect the many who view marriage as a religious institution, religion is not a prerequisite for heterosexual marriage in the United States. How unfair then, for those opposed to same sex marriage-many of whom identify with religiously and socially conservative-ideologies, to impose a single, subjective perspective of an institution on a vastly diverse group of individuals. After all, atheists, along with racial and religious minorities, are entitled to marriage rights; so why deny the same benefits to homosexuals?
As civil unions are state contracts, they cannot provide the nearly 1,400 rights and responsibilities granted by the federal government to “married” heterosexual couples. This means that couples who form a civil union are not of the same legal status as their married counterparts. As a result of the passage of the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act, neither the federal government nor states are obligated to recognized civil unions as valid. A homosexual couple living in Michigan, for example, would not have their civil union recognized, even though they were “married” in a separate state.
With marriage rates in this country declining, extending this right to all individuals would aid in stabilizing the drop. Allowing homosexual couples the right to marry nationwide would also promote much needed adoption. What children in foster care homes need most, is not necessarily a mother and a father, but someone capable of providing a stable, loving environment for the child. Homosexuals are just as capable of providing a loving environment as their heterosexual counterparts, and the idea that a state would reactively think otherwise is frightening.
As the federal government gives such huge legal incentives to marry, it is nothing less than legal discrimination to prevent the extension of marriage rights to an entire group of individuals. In addition, since America is governed by a separation of church and state, religious arguments against gay marriage should be detached from the political arena. Individuals are free to keep their spiritual beliefs, but when it comes to government policy, America should adhere to the concepts outlined by the Constitution.
While traditionalists may argue for the preservation of a distinct image of marriage, American attitudes regarding its purpose and even sanctity are being questioned, especially by younger generations. This is not to imply that marriage is no longer or should no longer be viewed as sacred, merely that a plethora of varying perspectives apply to the term. No individual should feel as if his or her voice is being stifled, especially regarding how to define such a personal and controversial concept. Those who oppose homosexual marriage rights don’t do so because they fear the status of their own marriage, despite such claims, but rather because they fear the country’s shifting perspective on this institution.
If there are arguments against same sex marriage which do not appeal to fear, contempt for change and progress or religious beliefs, I would willingly hear them. Currently, I know of none. So please enlighten me as to whether the denial of marriage rights in the legal sphere is anything other than discrimination, because it is still slightly bewildering as to why this country is not fully utilizing its democracy.
Katherine Yaremko is a
sophomore political science student. You may e-mail her at