Should gays be allowed to marry

The United States Constitution provides that each person is afforded with the right to association, right to freely exercise their religion and the right to marry. However, these protections by the Constitution is not totally accepted in the country as there are still some states which do not recognize marriages of the same sex.

According to same sex advocates, their right to marry is hampered by the fact that there are no federal statutes which recognizes the legality of marriages incurred by gay and lesbian couples.Most of these couples who do get “married” have done so under state statutes which allow same sex marriage. Since there is no exact federal statute that embraces same sex marriage, gay and lesbian couples from states which do not recognize and allow same sex marriages are banned from getting marriage licences nor applying for one. It is a fact that the “family” is the basic unit of society, composed of two individuals living together, cooperating in order to nurture and care for their children, whether their own or adopted.

And yet despite this definition of the family, there is really no exact definition as to what these individuals should be. Gay and lesbian couples are admittedly not in essence what the general public see as a family. According to the accepted norm of society, a family is composed of a man and a woman together with their children. Thus, a male couple who adopts children in order to build a family is not in essence a family. The issue of gay marriage has been a controversial one as it brings into focus the Constitution’s provisions on a person’s right to marry, which marriages are allowed and which are not.From a political standpoint, the issue of same sex marriage may be determinative of an individual’s position and future in the political arena.

Indeed, the issue of whether gays should be allowed to marry is not just a question of political views but of the Constitution’s essence and the scope of protection it can provide to its citizen. Background Gay couples and their children admittedly live in families and have slowly gained recognition in society for the past several decades. This began in the early 1970s when gay couples sought for the application of marriage licences.They also asked the courts to allow either one partner to adopt their children or other means in order to concretize their union or partnership.

As the 1980s entered, more and more gay couples were recognized in their domestic partnerships among private companies and various cities. As the 1990s evolved, gay couples and their families’ efforts were strengthened towards the recognition of their families and the couples’ legalized union. However, most of the attempts to legalize gay unions were often met with hostility in courts and states that does not recognize and allow same sex marriage.In the case of Baker v. Nelson in Minnesota, a gay couple argued that since there was no specific language in the Minnesota statute banning the same sex marriage, hence this should be an indication that same sex marriages should be allowed. Furthermore, the couple argued that prohibiting them from getting married violates their rights to due process and equal protection.

The court nevertheless denied their contention claiming that they could not find any evidences to support such claim. Several cases involving the issue of same sex marriage followed after Baker v Nelson.In Kentucky, A lesbian couple argued that denying them a marriage license deprived them of three basic constitutional rights -- the right to marry, the right to associate, and the right to freely exercise their religion. The court refused to address the constitutional issues, holding that "the relationship proposed does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license, because what they propose is not a marriage.

” (Jones v. Hallahan, 1973) Singer v. Hara 1974, also brought into question whether the prohibition of same sex marriage violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.The court however decided that the purpose of the statute was to overcome discriminatory legal treatment between men and women. Various other attempts were employed by gay couples all over the country in order to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. Others used politics to put pressure on individuals to support statutes that would legalize same sex marriages while others used conventional methods like court and constitutional issues to change present statutes banning same sex marriages.

Massachusetts v. Other States Against Gay MarriageAmong the 50 different states in the United States, only Massachusetts has openly and publicly recognized marriages made by gay and lesbian couples. In 2003, more than 3,000 gay couples married in Massachusetts in accordance with the provision of the Bay State Constitution which “allows” gay couples to marry in accordance with law. The Massachusetts Supreme Court held that barring the law on same sex marriage was unconstitutional and ordered its legislature to remedy the discrimination within six months from the date of ruling.Likewise in February of 2004, the court concluded that offering civil unions instead of civil marriage does not meet the requirements as set forth in the landmark case of Goodridge v. Department of Health.

Thus, gay couples may enter into same sex civil marriages. Gay couples from out-of-state may not however contract marriage in Massachusetts. Massachusetts is not the only state that recognizes the union of gay couples. Vermont, Connecticut and Hawaii are among the states that recognized the union of gay couples.However, unlike in Massachusetts where gay couples may be married legally, these states merely provide for the civil unions or marriage-like relationships between gay and among gay couples. Under the Civil laws of these states, gay couples have the same family rights as those of the heterosexual couples.

For example, gay and lesbian couples may have the advantages of annulment, divorce, child custody, child support and alimony. A partner may also have inheritance rights when the other partner dies.However, this consensus of legalizing gay marriage in the United States is not shared by nearly half of the states. The New York Court of Appeals for instance had rejected the claims of gays and lesbian advocates that the New York state constitution guarantees them equal access to the rights and privileges of marriage. California on the other hand, nullified 4,000 same-sex marriages contracted citing that the city does not have any authority to do such action as it was purely in defiance of the state law.

But the same ruling in San Francisco was reversed a year after by the California Supreme Court. When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the county clerks to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples at the city hall, his directive was supported by the California Supreme court after upholding the ban on same sex marriage. According to the judge who declared that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional, the ban on same gay marriage violates the basic human right to marry a person of one’s choice.Moreover, the judge reiterated that the 28-year-old law which defined marriage as the union between a man and woman is unfair and arbitrary.

According to gay marriage advocates, marriages between gays and lesbians should be allowed as there is no direct and clear provision in the United States Constitution which prohibits same sex marriages. Moreover, since there is no exact and clear definition as to what parties may contract marriages other than the parties must be of legal age and must give his or her consent, gays and lesbians may contract marriages as provided by the Constitution.There are various grounds as to why same sex marriage advocates push for the recognition of same-sex marriages other than the Constitution provides for these rights. Gay marriage advocates are concerned that the bans on gay marriages may be interpreted as prohibiting business and governments from extending benefits to employees’ same sex partners.

Moreover, interests in succession and inheritance by gay couples may also be unduly prejudiced. DOMA and the Ban on Gay Marriages More than half of the states in the US have declared the ban on same sex marriage as falling within the Constitutional grounds.Forty-four states have adopted the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as solely the union between a heterosexual man and woman. The DOMA was passed in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 which also bars the federal recognition of same sex-marriages that allows states to ignore gay marriages performed elsewhere. The proponents of the DOMA assert the authority the law based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause under the US Constitution.

This was done in order to neutralize marriages between heterosexual on the federal level.The Act also allows each state to recognize whether states will permit same-sex marriages. There are instances when the DOMA is questioned as to whether it is constitutional or not. And yet despite that such contention may be unnecessary as the Constitution itself provides and recognizes the “policy of public exception” in relation to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Thus, when one state recognizes the legality of gay marriage, such state cannot enforce such legality to other states which ban gay marriages in their respective states.

Among the contentions of those against gay marriages, not withstanding the religious arguments claim that gay marriages should be banned or should not be recognized for several reasons. Foremost of this is the problem of benefits from employers. In some cases this is probably a good thing but according to oppositions of gay marriages this would definitely put a strain on family as an institution. Other non-traditional coupes would spring up to reap the benefits afforded by any change or amendment of the Constitution in relation to the provisions of marriages.

Moreover, as President Bush claimed in his call for the Constitutional Amendment of DOMA in order to federalize the banning of gay marriages, ”marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. ” (Bush, 2004). According to those working against the recognition and lifting of the ban on gay marriages, to legalize gay marriages is just like destroying the essence of family.

One reason as to why the definition of marriage under as being a union of a man and woman is because of the concept of procreation. Gays and lesbians admittedly cannot procreate if society were to base it from their union. Adoption, which has been an option sought by gay and lesbian couples is not an appealing alternative against the concept of procreation. Children need to be at a unit where they are given balance and stability. Admittedly, gays and lesbians cannot give this kind of stability. Thus, adoption will then be obsolete as courts would then be unable to favour heterosexual couples who as against homosexuals one.

Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. Even the polyamorous couples won’t be excluded. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law”. (Dobson). Among the countries around the world, only the Netherlands and Belgium which recognize and allow gay marriages.

This is evident that the world’s consensus of marriage is limited at best between and among heterosexuals.Gay Marriage Should be Allowed There are several reasons why gay marriage should be allowed and legally recognized under federal laws. While it is indeed true that the definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman is arbitrary and unfair, other reasons come up as to why same-sex marriages should be allowed. Indeed it is true that those against the legalization of gay marriages fear that this would be the onset of the spread of homosexuality, there is no clear and present evidence that homosexuality is by choice of an individual.In fact, there are various evidences pointing out that homosexuality is innate and probably acquired genetically. Had gay marriage advocates not seen the benefits of working for the legalization and recognition of same sex marriages, there would be no efforts at all in working towards that goal.

The United States take so much pressure on the issue of legalizing marriage between and among gays and lesbians that it has not really taken time to compare the concept of marriage with other countries. It is true that marriage is a contract entered into by two consenting parties.And yet there are various aspects of marriage in other countries that has not been considered by the US while these countries consider such marriages as valid and legal. In other countries and cultures, marriage is signified by the purchase of the woman from her parents into the family of the groom.

Arranged marriage is also very common among Islamic practicing states and individuals. And yet, these marriages are considered to be valid and legal. Same-sex marriage is no different from these kinds of marriages.These marriages are considered to be contracts and homosexuals must also be given this right to enter into this kind of contract. While civil unions and domestic partnership is not also widely recognized, gay marriage happens to be in the same scope as this kind of union only that the contracting parties are of the same sex. The call for the legalization and allowing gay marriages is not only because of the couple’s quest to be accepted by society but is a call to respect equality, the rights of the individual as set forth in the constitution.

Allowing gay couples to get married legally contrary to what others believe as being harmful to society is erroneous at the least. The question as to why one set of loving and caring couple be deprived of their right to express their love and intentions in the face of man and law? Aside from the contention that the concept of marriage is by semantics – meaning only man and woman may contract marriage and tradition whereby there was really no call or moves before to legalize the marriage of gays and lesbians.Whereas before, marriage between blacks and white people were not allowed, it took a lot of socialist movements to allow such marriages to be legal. The real nature of marriage has not been put in the arguments made those seeking to ban gay marriages. For marriage is a social contract, a binding commitment at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. (The Economist).

Since the Constitution are provided with the equal protection clause then homosexuals are also afforded with the right to contract marriage to persons or individuals whom they would like to be wed and committed.Political Implications There are various implications of legalizing and recognizing gay or same sex marriages. It is evident that America still does not recognize gay marriages as legal. Politicians from both the Republicans and Democrats are walking on tight rope when it comes to the issue of recognizing gay marriages.

In fact, in California, Democrats were trying to diffuse the issue of same-sex marriage which admittedly can cause them problems in poll since it was evident that more than 50 percent of the voters.It is evident that many Americans still view marriage as the union of man and woman. When the issue of gay marriage became the object of national and public interest, many politicians became openly unhappy with the matter. While many politicians favour same sex marriage, there is still a considerable number of them that oppose such.

When President Bush defended Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, when the Senator compared homosexuality to adultery, bigamy, incest and polygamy, he was likewise meet with staunch criticisms as well as pats on the back.For some, his action on keeping silent as to his position on homosexuality focusing instead on how a person acts and relates with others. This is probably because of the fact that Bush as the leader of one of the greatest nations of the world is being watched by other nations as well. Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material “beneficial” to mankind. (Dobson).

If the United States decide that marriage between and among gays and lesbians is legal, other countries would definitely follow suit. Canada for instance has been closely monitoring the US’ move and decision towards the recognition of gay marriages. Despite the Supreme Court’s comments that they are basing their interpretation of the Constitution on European and Canadian laws it would still be evident nevertheless that these countries would wait for the decision of the US regarding the matter.