The institution of marriage is highly respected and holds great sentimental value for most societies. However, not all couples are afforded the right to be legally recognized as a married couple. Couples of the same-sex are denied the right to have their marriages be legal in the eyes of the law. Same-sex marriage is an important issue because it deals with a relatively large minority of the United States. Gays and lesbians are rumored to be about ten percent of today's population. Several factors come into play when discussing same sex marriages. The definition of marriage, the concept that homosexuality is genetic, legality, constitutionality are a few that must be considered.
Homosexuality, as a lifestyle has always been under great fire in our culture. Homosexuality has been defined and termed in many contexts. The West Chester University Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Services states that, Given the variable aspects of sexual orientation and given evidence that an individual's sexual orientation may change over time, it is difficult to provide a precise and universally accepted definition of homosexuality. In general terms, homosexuality may be described as the capacity to find affection and or sexual satisfaction with someone of the same gender.
Focus founder and fundamental Christian leader, James Dobson, however, simply defines homosexuality as a sin and says homosexuals can be cured in God's name (Egelko, 3/2000 p2). As one can see from these two examples alone, the definition of this lifestyle isn't focused solely on what a homosexual is, but rather how individuals feel about the way of life.
In day to day living, the homosexual lifestyle is most likely not much different from the heterosexual or straight lifestyle. A homosexual still gets up in the morning and goes to work or to school. They still have dinner with family or friends, participate in sports and community organizations and events. And yes, they still hold stable relationships, just like a man and women would, they still go through the ups and downs of a relationship, facing the same joyous moments, and same hard times with an individual they love. The homophobia that has spread through our country like wildfire since the outing of homosexuals became more common and acceptable undermines these common variables between homosexual and heterosexual couples.
One of the largest differences for a homosexual is living a life of fear. Along with all of their day to day activities that mirror any heterosexual, they must also deal with the stress of being different and being unacceptable to the society which they are a part of. They must know the places they are welcomed as an outted gay person, and the ones where they must hide their true identities. As well, they are not granted many of the rights a heterosexual takes for granted. They cannot file for taxes along with their partner, cannot receive medical benefits or health insurance under their partners coverage, as most husband and wives do, and most essentially, they cannot create a bond of unity to express their love through a legal marriage (France, 2/2000 p2).
Homosexuals are 'gay' due to a combination of factors. These factors are environment and society-the outside influences- and genetics. Hence, homosexuals do not decide their own sexuality, nor do heterosexuals. Therefore, homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, one of these rights being marriage. If it is proven that there is indeed a gene that causes homosexuality, than we can draw a parallel between not allowing homosexuals to marry and not allowing interracial marriages. This is why it is of great importance to public policy whether or not homosexuality is predetermined.
Some now believe that homosexuality is genetically predetermined by a gene on the X chromosome. If this is the case, then gays cannot decide their sexual orientation, for it is predetermined. Hence, not allowing those who are genetically inclined to prefer the same sex to marry leaves homosexuals with three choices. The first is to remain celibate their entire lives so as not to live in sin; the second is to marry someone they do not truly love or find attractive simply for the marriage benefits; the third and final choice is to live together with their partner and face the dirty looks of fellow citizens, simply because they are living together though they are not married.
In 1862, Charles Darwin wrote that, We do not even in the least know the final cause of sexuality. The whole subject is hidden in the darkness. In more recent years, however, this statement is being chipped away at by multiple studies which offer proof that there is a region on the X-chromosome labeled Xq28 which predisposes men to be homosexual. Biologists from the National Institutes of Health led by Dean Hamer did a study in 1993 and a follow up study in 1995. These studies tried to show what biological influences, if any, there are on sexual preference. Both of Dean Hamer's studies suggest that a man may be predisposed to be homosexual due to genes he inherited from his mother. In his first study, Hamer compared the X-chromosomes of 40 pairs of gay brothers and found one region, called Xq28, which was more likely to match than would be expected if the two X-chromosomes from the mother had been randomly mixed. In eighty-two percent of the pairs, the brothers' gene in question matched. In their second study, which was used to confirm the first, sixty-seven percent matched. In the second study, heterosexual brothers of gays were also included in the study(The Economist, 1995).
George Ebers, who is questioning and investigating some of Hamer's research, says that he also thinks that homosexuality is genetic, but does not think that the work should be only focused on the X-chromosome. Ebers has looked into it himself and sees no linkage between the mother and the son. He also did a study of forty gay brothers and found no linkage on the X-chromosome. Hamer says that this is because Ebers did not choose subjects from families which would allow for the maternal flow of inheritance(Science, 1995). Two scientists named Odenwald and Zhang claimed to have made male fruit flies gay by increasing the flies' level of serotonin. Though this gene also exists in humans, no linkage has yet been made to show that serotonin affects the sexual orientation of humans. In 1991 studies showed that identical twins had a greater chance of having the same sexual preference than other pairs of siblings. Also in 1991, a Californian scientist showed that there was a slight difference in the physical aspects of the brain between gay and straight men(Time, 1995).
If it is substantially proven that there is a gay gene, it would be very dangerous to the religious right. The right won't like it because the work will suggest that homosexuality is at least partly natural. (The New Republic, 1995) This is because of how stigmatized homosexuality has become. If homosexuality were as natural and impossible to change as hair color or race, it will become a lot harder to discriminate against homosexuals and deny them the benefits which heterosexuals can receive. If the innate sexual preference of any given person cannot be changed, the United States government can no longer keep homosexuals from the rights which they deserve, primarily, marriage.
Marriage is one of the fundamental establishments of the United States. As a young person, one looks forward to many goals in their lifetime. Afew include career success, a good life, and very often marriage to the person they love and a family together. This is one of the biggest parts of our American life and culture. Very few heterosexuals would be willing to put their right to marry on a ballot for voter approval. However, in the past ten years that is a prospect gay men and women are facing all over our United States.
Marriage has been a unique part of our culture since its beginning. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines marriage as to join or unite a husband and wife. As well, many churches quote like definitions. The Catholic Church, for example, relies on Jesus' statement about a man and his wife becoming one flesh, never to be separated ( Egelko, 3/2000 p1). And West Virginia Governor, Cecil Underwood, just asked the legislature to put on all marriage licenses and applications: Marriage is designed to be a loving and lifelong union between a woman and a man. The debate comes over whether or not these definitions are simply traditional in their wording of man and wife or if that is truly the way it is meant to be. This brings up the issue of whether religious or secular definitions should prevail and how to go about changing or amending these definitions. If a marriage is truly a unity of two individuals in love, however, who is the final decision-maker in how far those lines can be drawn? Is it really the place of our government, or even ourselves to tell a couple, regardless of their gender or sexuality that they may not be united legally in their love?
By the simple public act of marrying, men and women achieve a substantial package of rights and duties which, collectively provide support and predictability to their marital relationship: 1) legal recognition of theirsexual union, 2) legal enforcement of their mutual obligation to financially support each other, 3) automatic guardianship and custody of the children of that union, 4) improved ability to adopt the children of others, 5) legal enforcement of their mutual obligation to support their children, 6) legal recognition of their constitutionality and the constitutional sanctity and importance of their marriage, 7) insurable interests in each others lives, 8) next-of-kin status in medical emergencies, and, 9) in the event of death, the right to one-half of each other's estate. (www.clark.net/pub/quaker Love and the Law) These rights are for all people who love each other. Not only heterosexuals.
Marriage goes beyond the benefits, however. The institution of marriage is a very respected one, and holds much sentimental value for many people. If we look at the Declaration of Independence for inspiration, we read that all men are created equal. Does this exclude homosexuals? Many think so simply because they believe that marriage is not a right, but a privilege. This argument means that because gays are not going to bring a child into the world, they do not deserve the privilege of marriage. Those that oppose this argument see marriage in a different way. They believe that if you love someone, you have the right to bond yourself to them legally. There are many legal and economic benefits to marriage. Studies show that, generally, married couples are more economically stable. When Sandra Rovira's life partner died in her arms from cancer, her partner's company, AT&T, denied any and all death benefits to her. AT&T made it clear that if the law recognized homosexual unions, so would they. Twelve years earlier, Ms. Rovira and her partner, Ms. Forlini, formalized their relationship in a ceremony where the two women exchanged rings and vows. However, because this ceremony is not recognized by the government, Ms. Rovira was denied the benefits that would have been given to her if she was a man who had gone through the same ceremony. An AT&T spokesperson, Maureen Lynch, was quoted as saying, If we have a benefit for spouses and you don't have a spouse, that doesn't mean we've discriminated... If you're single, you're not being discriminated against, you just don't have anybody who's eligible for that benefit.(New York Times, 1989) This woman was being discriminated against because she did not have the option of marrying her partner. If Ms. Rovira and Ms. Forlini could have obtained a marriage that was seen as valid by the law, they would have been able to share the following benefit with many married heterosexual couples.
Hawaii's courts have held that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples is a violation of the state's constitution (Gallagher, 6/98 p2). In 1997, gay couples in Hawaii petitioned for legal recognition and won a groundbreaking compromise: domestic partnership (Wolf, 2/98 p1). Although this is not a marriage license, it does promise a more valid partnership in the eyes of the courts and of the society for the future. At the same time, however, thirty states have now passed bans on same-sex marriages outright, and in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of gay marriages (Wolf, 2/98 p3).
The state of Vermont is also on the front page when it comes to the gay marriage movement. In a Vermont Supreme Court decision in December of 1999, Chief Justice Jeffrey L. Amestoy told the state legislature either to provide licenses or set up a domestic partner system extending all or most of the same rights and obligations provided by law to married partners (France, 2/2000 p1). The court's decision was a huge win for proponents of gay marriage, however, it has not granted an actual marriage license yet, which is what a couple will really need in the eyes of federal and other state laws. The latest and probably hottest debate over this issue has been in California. In the beginning of March 2000, California voters approved a ballot measure recognizing only those marriages between men and women (Tharp, 3/2000 p1). Entitled Proposition 22, this ballot won by a 61-39 percent margin. Until this point, state law had required California to validate unions legally performed in other states. This ban, however, will make any same-sex union invalid in California.
Ironically, same-sex marriages are not currently legal anywhere in the United States. Therefore, Proposition 22 is quite possibly jumping the gun. Opponents of P-22 state that gays' right to marry, though rejected by most churches, should be preserved in secular society—and an individualistic tradition that impedes political organizations (Egelko, 3/3000 p3). It has also been called barbaric and mean-spirited. The individuals who have been backing this type of legislation include conservatives and religious leaders who have historically been undermining the basic individual rights of gays and lesbians for years; a fact that makes it very hard to believe this is not an attempt to hurt or discriminate against gay and lesbian people.
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states: '...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' This means that a state government cannot make a law which denies someone his or her rights. It is a homosexuals right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness which is being denied by all fifty states which do not allow same sex marriage. Every citizen of the United States has equal protection under the laws. This means that simply based on sexual preference, we cannot discriminate against gay people because they therefore are not protected equally under the laws.
I believe that there is indeed a gay gene and that it is indirect. Homosexuality is something that is greatly influenced by environment and society. I believe that if someone is genetically predisposed towards homosexuality, but their social situation does not bring it out, they will act as a heterosexual, but never love to the fullest extent a member of the opposite sex. I believe that a male who grows up as a Catholic in the Bible belt with the homosexual gene will be more likely to marry a female and never realize that he has a different calling. Meanwhile, a man growing up in New York City with the homosexual gene, will realize almost from day one, and grow up content. I think that some people are predisposed to homosexuality, but that alone does not insure that those people will be homosexual. I think that it is a positive step for the gay rights movement that there are more and more studies which show that homosexuality is genetic in some way, shape, or form. I don't believe that people will begin aborting fetuses shown to be predisposed towards homosexuality, for a very simple reason. The majority of people who think that gay people are evil are the extreme religious right. This group also vehemently opposes abortion. Those people who only oppose gay marriage, but not gay people, also would not get an abortion because they are still too far right. As for other kinds of discrimination, these things already happen regardless of the fact that it has not been proven that homosexuality is determined by genetics. The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. There is very little doubt in my mind of this fact, especially since I believe that homosexuality is not a choice. According to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, all of the states must recognize a licence valid in one state as valid in theirs. The Defense of Marriage Act negates this, but only in the case of same-sex marriages. DOMA does not say that all marriages are up to the state to value, only ones between homosexuals. This is discrimination pure and simple. If congress made a law saying that states don't have to uphold other state's marriages of two blond people, there would be an uproar. This is exactly what congress has done, except by way of homosexuals. Hawaii is very close to legalizing same sex marriage(Vital Speeches, August 1, 1997). For the sake of argument, lets assume that tomorrow Hawaii passes a law that makes homosexual marriage legal. Many homosexual couples will fly to Maui and become legally married. Once they fly back to New York, however, their legal union is no longer valid. This is because of the Defense of Marriage Act. This has many connotations. For one, Hawaii might begin to overflow with homosexual couples who want their marriage recognized. This puts a burden on Hawaii's government, which is not fair to them. Hawaii is simply giving choice to a large minority of people. That minority should not be forced to choose between marriage and their withstanding career. Under our constitution, all people must receive equal protection under the law. Homosexuals are discriminated against because of their sexual preference, which is something they cannot change. A little over thirty years ago, interracial marriage was illegal. This was overturned in the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia which declared it unconstitutional on the grounds that this violated the Equal Protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. Making gay marriage legal is the next step. It is not the United States government's perogative to tell people whom they can and cannot marry. They did not learn from the case of Loving v. Virginia and continue to restrict us in marriage, though no it is no longer about skin color, but gender. This is unconstitutional and must be stopped. In conclusion, we must legalize gay marriage for all of the reasons stated above. The constitution protects all people, not just those who are attracted to the opposite sex. Homosexuals are predisposed to their orientation, and deserve the same rights as everyone else. Marriage is a right, not a privilege, and everyone deserves that right. There are legal as well as sentimental benefits to marriage. Any two people who are in love with one another and are ready to bond themselves legally as well as emotionally have the right to get married whether they are gay or straight. The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and is the embodiment of the homophobia of the United States Government. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution is directly violated by this piece of legislation. DOMA does not equally protect the United States citizens, and does nothing but discriminate against a specific group of people. This is unfair and unconstitutional. There is a gay gene and homosexuals are simply acting in the way that their genetic code promotes. Homosexuals are people, too. If one gene in everyone's DNA had been slightly different, everyone could be homosexual. There are only two ways to establish a policy of equality: Give rights to all, or do not give rights to anybody. This dilemma, defined by French writer Alexis de Tocqueville, must be resolved.
Bibliography Bawer, Bruce. Family Valued. The Advocate 20 Jul 1999: 72.
Bundy, Jennifer. West Virginia Governor Faults Same-Sex Marriage. Associated Press 13 Jan 2000: 1.
Coleman, Jennifer. Methodists Drop Gay Wedding Case. Associated Press 11 Feb 2000: 2-3.
Egelko, Bob. Gay Marriage Ban Splits Community. Associated Press 3 Mar 2000: 2-3.
France, Steve. A Marriage Proposal. ABA Journal 86 (2000): 28-29.
Gallagher, John. The Other M Word. The Advocate 23 Jun 1998: 53.
Nissing, Douglas F. Standing on Ceremony. The Advocate 8 Dec 1998: 11.
Swanson, Doug J. Father's anger at gay son led to California ballot initiative against gay marriage. Dallas Morning News 4 Mar 2000, early ed.: P1+.
Tanner, Robert. California Passes Gay Marriage Ban. Associated Press 8 Mar 2000: 1-3.
Tharp, Mike. A 'NO' to Gay Marriage. U.S. News and World Report 28 Mar 2000: 39-40.
Werner, Erica. Opposition Vs. Proposition 22. Associated Press 5 Mar 2000: 1-2.
Wolf, Naomi. Scenes from a Gay Marriage. George Feb 1998: 48-50.