The Right to Wed

As a child growing up in America I was taught a love and respect for my country. I was taught about our constitution and our laws, and I was taught that according to it all people were created equally. It seems to me we turn a blind eye to this statement when the people who should be treated equally are ones the majority of citizens don't agree with, or don't understand so therefore fear. Gay marriage is one of these issues that we as a country cannot come to an agreement on, and that we have a lot of debate over. I think we often look at the argument from a very emotional standpoint by not using logical reasoning, and instead letting our feelings about the topic overrule logical evaluation of it. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry in the United States because it is their legal and religious right to be able to do so.

Many argue for Gay Marriage to be made legal based on civil rights. There are many moments in history which we can look back upon now and may find it hard to understand how the laws and decisions that were made then ever came to pass based on our constitution and the lives we are afforded now. One of these decisions was the Dred Scott decision. "The Dred Scott decision made one very important point, "human beings deserve respect and deserve to be treated with dignity." (Mosser, 2010, p 5:4). The Dred Scott decision wasn't about same sex marriages obviously, but it does touch on a key point. We all deserve to be treated as equals with respect and dignity. This issue has been fought over and over again on behalf of different groups who were being denied basic human rights during our history based on race and sex, and we are now going through the same age old battle as before but now on behalf of sexuality. Many of the arguments against Gay Marriage are the same arguments that were once given against women's rights as well.

Religion is often given as the reason that many cannot support same sex marriages (I will discuss those views in more depth later in the paper; however we can't have it both ways. Religious beliefs can't only be qualified for the majority and must protect all main stream religions, several of which now support same sex marriages. According to Debra Delaet and Rachel Caufield (2008), "A religious rights frame for the debate over gay marriage suggests that the federal and state governments inappropriately violate the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment with marriage licensing and benefits policies that give preferential status to heterosexual unions sanctified in religious ceremonies but deny the same recognition and rights to same-sex unions, even those that are blessed by churches that support gay marriage. In particular, such discriminatory practices violate the "neutrality principle" by privileging a religious conception of marriage favored by some religious traditions but not universally shared by all mainline religions, and in this regard, it is important to note that religious conservatives have been the driving force behind the movement to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and this definition of marriage is unquestionably shaped by sectarian, religious beliefs." (para. 5).

In this day and age when divorce is more common than long happy marriages gender seems like such a trivial piece of the puzzle. We should support and encourage love wherever and whenever we can find it. Sydney Callahan (1994) points out, "Any two persons must struggle to obtain loving unity, but when you take into account the multitude of inevitable differences in temperament, intelligence, taste, talents, and moral maturity, gender can be a minor consideration." (para 11). I think that the topic of whether two people should be allowed the same rights as the rest of us in regards to who they may wed is a waste of our valuable time and resources. We should be evolved past these types of issues by now and focusing on much more difficult issues like hunger, war, and poverty.

So why haven't we moved past this issue? Opposition to gay marriage is largely