May 06 2009
45* more states to go
Same-sex marriage is probably the most divisive topic in American politics today. But, as various state legislatures continue this controversial debate across the United States, I am forced to ask myself: Is America truly a nation of bigots? In a recent poll, a little over 54% of Americans are against same-sex marriage. Not too long ago, miscegenation was illegal in most states and this remained an issue for most of the 20th century. As a socially responsible society, we can not afford to waste a majority of the 21st century continuing with the same-sex marriage debate.
I support same-sex marriage because marriage is a legal status attached with universal legal rights as supposed to being only a religious status or right. With that being said, it is therefore a civil rights issue and thus civil unions do not suffice. Civil unions have been the proposed option by many states and politicians to appease both sides, but I oppose this option because it only offers legal protection and the benefits of marriage within the borders of a state and not on a federal level.
Same-sex marriage was first legalized by the Netherlands at the start of the 21st century with Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, and Sweden soon following suit. As of today, there are only 5 states that have legalized same-sex marriage in the United States: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont (effective in September 2009), Iowa, and Maine. The states that are currently in the spotlight with imminent legislation are New York, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.
Detractors of same-sex marriage often mention “unnatural”, “sanctity of marriage”, and “immoral acts” in their arguments against the subject; everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but should one’s values be imposed on others or applied universally? Of course not. But, to debunk the “unnatural” claim, there is somewhere between 500-1500 species of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior, including grey whales, hyenas, and several species of primates (including humans). The perceived “norm” does not equal “natural”. Also, there is no such thing as “sanctity of marriage” in a country with one of the highest divorce rates in the world and where most people do not engage in supposedly “moral acts” for procreation purposes, which I’m assuming is the basis of the “moral act”. “Immoral acts,” though I don’t agree with the term, is a respectable claim by the religious cohort but, legalizing same-sex marriage does not force religious establishments to recognize or perform this union. Separation of religion and state is at the core of this and civil marriages can be performed by state governments if a religious establishment chooses not to. Marriage isn’t about “moral” or “immoral” acts but it is (or at least should be) the union of two autonomous individuals regardless of sexual orientation. The government shouldn’t discriminate against individuals seeking to become legally married, because quite frankly, marriage is very personal and it is a civil right.












