In Defense of Gay Marriage: America's Commitment to Equality Under the Law

Although social issues largely took a backseat to fiscal concerns in America’s most recent election cycle, few issues apart from abortion seem to inspire comparable levels of ire and passion as the issue of gay marriage. An increasing number of states have taken steps to prohibit gay people from marrying, even as other states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.) have legalized it. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, ensures that states are not required to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. As of 2011, the Obama administration has announced that it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act against federal challenges. Obama has further signed the repeal of the infamous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which prohibited members of the military from admitting that they were gay. Despite these hopeful signs that gay marriage may someday be recognized as a right no less fundamental than the right of heterosexual couples to marry, opposition to same-sex marriage is still rife across the American socio-political landscape, with detractors frequently claiming that allowing same-sex marriage would be damaging to either the much-lauded and revered institution of heterosexual marriage and/or to the moral fabric of American society, and that homosexual marriage is damaging to children. No evidence exists to support this latter claim. Legitimate studies have revealed that children raised by same-sex couples have similar outcomes to those raised by heterosexual couples, and tend to do just as well (Sharon Jaysen, “Same-Sex Couples Can be Effective Parents, Researchers Finds,” USA Today , 21 January 2010 <http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm>).

As to the claim that homosexual marriage is damaging to either the intuition of heterosexual marriage or the moral fabric of society, this view tends to rest upon one of three beliefs: that heterosexual marriage is traditional, and therefore good, while homosexual marriage is not; that marriage is an intuition ordained by God to sanctify the bond between a man and a woman; and that homosexuality is unnatural.

A brief journey through history clearly reveals the falsity of the claim that heterosexual marriage is traditional. Apart from the last several hundred years, after Christianity became the dominant religion in much of Europe, heterosexual marriage was not the norm. Even as recently as 1998, during a survey of more than a thousand societies, the University of Wisconsin found that only 186 were monogamous. 4 societies featured polyandry, a form of polygamy in which a woman has multiple husbands, while 1041 had frequent or occasional polygyny, a form of polygamy in which a man has multiple wives, (Paul Vallely, “The Big Question: What's the history of polygamy, and how serious a problem is it in Africa?” The Independent , 6 January 2010 <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-big-question-whats-the-history-of-polygamy-and-how-serious-a-problem-is-it-in-africa-1858858.html>). A 2008 article published by The New Scientist further suggests that, based upon variations of the human genome, a relatively small number of men throughout history have had a disproportionally high impact on the human gene pool, suggesting “that small numbers of males must have mated with lots of females,” (Ewen Callaway, “Polygamy left its mark on the human genome,” The New Scientist, 26 September 2008 <http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14817-polygamy-left-its-mark-on-the-human-genome.html>). The only explanation for the genetic variations uncovered during this study “is wide-spread, long lasting polygamy,” (Ibid). As Michale Hammer, one of lead researchers and a population geneticist at the University of Arizona, himself stated, “I don't know how long monogamy has been with us. […] It seems [that] it hasn't been around long, evolutionarily," (Ibid).

Even if one wants to claim that heterosexual marriage is traditional for contemporary western society, such an assertion does not prove that the institution of homosexual marriage would be detrimental. The designation of something or some practice as “traditional” does not automatically entail that it is also a social good. Slavery was traditional, and still is in certain parts of the world. The subjection of women was traditional, as was child labor until it was outlawed. Piracy is traditional, and yet I don’t see anyone defending the modern-day Somali pirates by claiming that they are merely engaged in their traditional form of livelihood (disclaimer: I am not implying that piracy is a Somalian tradition. Various forms of piracy have been practiced throughout the world by people of all nationalities). In order to assert that something that is traditional should also be considered a social good, one has to address the benefits that it has provided for people in society. Heterosexual marriage is unquestionably a social good, but this also does not entail any reason why the benefits of marriage should be denied to homosexual couples. If anything, the argument that heterosexual marriage constitutes a social good should be viewed as a reason why homosexual marriage should also be considered as a social good, since there is no inherent difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships that would disqualify people engaged in the latter from benefiting from the protections and rights provided by legal recognition.

Despite claims to the contrary, the genders of the participants involved does not constitute a legitimate reason to bar either homosexuals or heterosexuals from marrying one another. Many of the arguments claiming that gender does constitute a legitimate reason to ban homosexual marriage stem from religious beliefs, or the view that homosexuality is somehow unnatural. In the Old Testament, homosexuality is in several verses referred to as an abomination in the eyes of God. Based upon these verses, some Christians and Christian denominations have campaigned heavily against both gay marriage and civil unions, which afford homosexual couples similar rights as marriage does for heterosexuals. Without getting into issues of Biblical interpretation in regards to the condemnation of homosexuality, in a democracy a majority religion should never be permitted to dictate rights or discriminate against minority groups. The United States of American is not a theocracy; rather, it is a constitutional representative democracy. What this means is that American democracy is constrained by two things: a Constitution that limits the power of both the government and the people power, and the election of representatives that create law rather than, as in a traditional democracy, having the people themselves gather and vote on every new proposal. For the purposes of this discussion, only the first constraint is relevant.

The Constitution provides a blueprint for a structure of government designed to perpetually protect the people against tyranny. It does this by dividing the powers of government among three different governmental branches (legislative, executive and judicial), and ensuring that each branch is, to some extent, dependent upon the other two, providing for a system of checks and balances that is designed to prevent any single branch from illegitimacy appropriating too much power. The Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, is also designed to protect both individuals and minority groups against majority rule. A majority may oppress and tyrannize just as easily as a despot; easier, in some cases, since in a democracy the majority will work under the cloak of legitimacy. The US Constitution therefore includes a list of fundamental rights and protections afforded to each citizen that the people’s elected representatives, even acting at their behest, cannot legally infringe upon or negate. The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution ensures that every citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law, and further states that “No State [sic ] shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” (Amendment XIV, The Constitution of the United States of America,” U.S. Constitution Online < http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html>). It is blatantly unconstitutional to deny gays the same legal protections as heterosexuals, regardless of how many citizens support such laws and prohibitions.

Homosexuality is also not unnatural, regardless of what its detractors may claim. According to an article in NewsMedical, homosexuality in the animal kingdom is actually quite common, with homosexual behavior having been observed in 1,500 animal species (“1,500 animal species practice homosexuality,” NewsMedical , 23 October 2008 <http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/2071 8.aspx>). For at least one species, the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexual behaviors constitute an important component of their social lives, with sex being used as a way to strengthen social bonds and distract the animals from engaging in violence (Ibid). In ancient Greece, it was common for young male athletes to have older male lovers before getting married. Even in societies in which homosexuality has been outlawed, gay people still exist, and either go underground or attempt to hide their true sexual orientation. The higher number of heterosexuals as opposed to either bisexual or homosexual individuals also does not indicate that the latter two are unnatural, particularly given the prevalence of social pressures to be straight—right-handed people may outnumber left-handed ones, but neither group is more natural or unnatural than the other.

Questions of whether homosexuality is innate or constitutes a choice made by individuals are beyond the scope of this paper and, as such, will not be addressed here, except to state that this question is irrelevant when considering the legality of homosexual marriage. In a democracy, people are permitted to make choices, barring those that infringe upon the rights of others, regardless of whether or not other people support their lifestyle decisions. People can get divorced, women can work outside the home and children are required to receive an education—each of these three items unquestionably either do or once did offend or upset at least a small proportion of the American populace, and also were established or pursued in contrast to the traditions of the time. Neither tradition nor religious beliefs constitute a legitimate reason for the denial of rights. Gay people are entitled to all of the same legal protections as heterosexual people, up to and including the right to marry who they chose, regardless of gender.