We’ve all heard the arguments for and against gay marriage. Gay rights can be a contentious topic for those on either side of the debate. After listening to the arguments, I feel that some very important elements are being overlooked. As a writer, I feel obligated to speak my mind.
At one time, the same arguments were made about interracial marriage. If you look back far enough, similar arguments were presented about inter-class and interfaith marriages. This reveals a pattern. While many people disagree with these legalized marriages, there is no evidence that the world fell apart when we allowed and eventually embraced them.
So for just a moment, let’s remove the emotion and degradation surrounding the denial of gay marriage and view it from a purely logical perspective. No legislation can keep two people who love each other apart. Societies that have legalized gay marriage score higher in all indicators of a “good society.” Their crime rates, unemployment rates, and suicide rates are all lower, among other benefits.
Marriage is fundamentally a legal agreement. If you strip away the emotion, marriage is simply two people entering into a legal contract. Historically, before women had the right to choose their partners, a marriage license was a document that essentially stated the woman was the man’s property and would obey him. Thankfully, we’ve progressed beyond that, but there are still legal obligations that married couples must adhere to. Adultery, for instance, remains illegal.
The gay community has been denied the right to enter into legal contracts with each other, which would enable them to provide for themselves and their families. Consequently, they often turn to holy unions. A holy union occurs in a church with the blessing of a pastor, rabbi, or other officiant, where two individuals of the same sex ask to be united in the eyes of God.
Denying legal contracts creates additional societal issues. Gay parents often struggle to secure fair health coverage for their children because one spouse cannot cover them through work insurance. This results in more children relying on government-sponsored health care. Moreover, without a legal commitment, there is no assurance that an estranged spouse will pay child support in the event of a separation. By denying the gay community the legal right to care for their families, we force the government to step in and provide support for individuals who would otherwise be self-sufficient.
And let’s not suggest that these issues wouldn’t occur if they were straight. Straight people get divorced, lose jobs, and face financial difficulties. Their legal commitments to one another help them navigate these challenges. Without similar legal commitments, families in the gay community often have no choice but to turn to government programs.
Let’s also dismiss the argument that gay people shouldn’t have children. If we pursue that line of reasoning, we could impose all sorts of restrictions, such as intelligence requirements or denying parenting rights to those who have been incarcerated. Where would we draw the line? Should we require a W-2 before allowing someone to have children? The government has no right to dictate what individuals do with their bodies, a principle established in the 1970s with Roe v. Wade.
Most people who strongly object to gay marriage often have deeply held religious beliefs. It’s time to acknowledge that by taking such a rigid religious stance on this issue, the gay community is left with no option but to seek holy unions—a marriage under God. They are simply asking for the legal protections that marriage offers, just as interracial, interclass, and interfaith couples have had to advocate for in the past.
One Response
Thanks for this article, it is very much loaded very informative and its purely true.