By Connor Small
Contributing Writer
On Feb. 7, proponents of same-sex marriage won another victory, as the California State Court of Appeals overturned Proposition 8 by a 2-1 decision, giving same-sex couples the right to marry in California. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Washington D.C. are the only other states to recognize same-sex marriage. While this decision is a step in the right direction, it has only reignited the debate.
In his dissent, Judge N. Randy Smith states same-sex marriage laws are to be treated in the same manner as laws regarding bestiality, incest and polygamy, saying, “Gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class” and are thus not entitled to the courts’ increased scrutiny of laws that affect them. In the opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt and Judge Michael Hawkins say that Proposition 8 “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”
While I am inclined to agree with Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins, I can understand where some of the opposition comes from. Much of the antagonism to same-sex marriage comes from the fact that it conflicts with many sacred laws (the most prominent being that of Christianity) that argue that marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman. While this may seem legitimate to religious groups, any argument against same-sex marriage that is argued from a religious standpoint should be moot because it conflicts with constitutional law and also goes against many of the teachings of these religions.
The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Therefore, any line of reasoning against same-sex marriage based on religious grounds should be defeated. But this is not the case, as gay-rights activists still struggle to push through legislation in the majority of the United States.
Lately, same-sex marriage has been a growing issue around the world. While same-sex marriage is legally recognized in a number of countries such as Canada, Argentina, South Africa and Spain, many countries in Africa and the Middle East uphold severe penalties for engaging in same-sex relations, such as life in prison or even the death penalty. While such penalties seem horrific to Americans, it is sadly just a way of life in these countries.
Some opponents argue that homosexuals should be allowed to enter in civil unions, saving marriage strictly for heterosexuals, but civil unions do not grant all of the rights marriage does. While marriage is recognized in all states, this is not the case for civil unions, which are recognized by some states, but not others. Couples in civil unions are also unable to file joint tax returns, allowing for certain tax breaks which are only afforded to married couples.
At the risk of sounding like a hippie, in my opinion, this issue comes down to two main points: freedom and love. I believe that everybody, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation should be afforded the same rights. If all men are created equal, then why can’t two men have the same rights as a man and a woman? Why should two people who love each other, who want the same rights as everybody else, not be given them just because they are the same sex? It’s time for the intolerance to stop.
One reply on “All should have right to marry”
Washington, D.C. is not a state. But otherwise, this article was very well-written. I had never really thought about how religious arguments against same-sex marriage should not be acceptable as a part of our laws. That’s a very interesting thought!