Understanding Truth: Weaknesses of the Main Arguments Against Legalizing Same Sex Marriage
Humanity has developed many intangible concepts, in attempts to improve the quality of various aspects of life. The evolution of interpersonal relationships has led to legal recognitions of conferred statuses. Marriage is a conferred status that has served as a sign of the unification of parties in private and public contexts. Definitions of marriage have varied and changed in virtually every culture. The purposes, legal rights, and responsibilities connected to marriage have also changed. In the United States, there is much contention concerning the legal recognition of gender-neutral marriage, also known as gay marriage, same-sex marriage, and gender independent marriage. Predominate arguments in favor of bans on the legal recognition of gender-neutral marriage are not consistent with pre-existing secular justification for the legal recognition of marriages. Arguments against the legal recognition of single gender marriages are not based on constitutionally valid logic, and therefore should be abandoned.
People who have authentic attraction to people of their own gender are known as homosexuals. Homosexual couples in the United States are currently engaged in legal battles to gain the legal recognition, rights, benefits, and responsibilities that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy under the system of legal marriage. Factions that oppose the legal recognition of the marriage of homosexuals present several recurring arguments to justify restricting marriage to heterosexuals. Most people who oppose homosexual marriage contend that homosexual marriage should not be legally recognized because homosexual attraction is not traditional, that homosexuality is unnatural, or that person’s homosexual attraction can be consciously chosen or abandoned. They believe that legal marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals for child rearing and superior child raising environments. They argue that the legal recognition of homosexual marriage will weaken and devalue heterosexual marriage, infringe upon religious freedom, and lead inexorably to bestiality, incest, and polygamy. They also assert that legal recognition of the marriages of homosexuals should be decided by the public majority, rather than judges and legislators. Finally, opponents to legal homosexual marriage believe that civil unions should suffice for the homosexual community, and the legal definition of marriage should not be altered under any circumstances. The National Organization for Marriage, an organization created to ban the legal recognition of homosexual marriage; echoes many of the popular anti-homosexual marriage points on their official web site for their members to send to their legislators:
• Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children [sic] tomorrow.
• We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all [sic], so we don’t [sic] have it in our face every day for the next ten years.
• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.
• Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s [sic] not confuse them further.
• Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us. (National Organization For Marriage)
First, it is important to realize that homosexual marriage is currently “legal” in all areas of United States, in the non-recognized ceremonial form. Ceremonial marriages performed in churches and other venues between homosexuals or heterosexuals are “allowed” in all states, but are typically unrecognized by the government without legal proceedings based on state laws. In Western Civilization, marriage has evolved dramatically through changes in traditions, reevaluation of social inhibitions, and changes in human rights. In earlier versions of marriage, love and affection were unnecessary details, and marriage was mainly a way to increase economic power and social status for two families. The leaders of families would decide whom each child would marry, based on projected mutual benefits in wealth and power. In such arrangements, the couple had very little control over whom they would marry, and the woman usually enjoyed far fewer rights than her husband. The wife was expected, and often required by law to be obedient to her husband, and could not own her own property, or accuse her husband of marital rape. The traditional definition of marriage defined the woman as the property of her husband, with limited power over her own future. The evolution of the rights of women in America helped to grant women with more power over their lives, where they could eventually own their own property, have their husbands charged with abuse such as marital rape, and seek employment without their husband’s permission. These changes came predominately from the realization of society that one spouse is not superior to the other because of gender, and therefore any gender should be treated equally in the realm of legal marriage.
An understanding of the diverse applications, functions, and changes to marriage is essential to understanding patterns of its changing definitions. The term “marriage” has different origins, and ceremonial marriage is resolutely separate from the concept of legal marriage. In the past, people have entertained types of marriage such as arranged marriage, and age-disparate marriage. In many countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Canada, and the United States, various groups follow the custom of the family patriarch, or parents choosing the spouses for their children. Although this practice is no longer predominate in Western society, prearranged marriages are still practiced and receive legal recognition from the federal government. In a hybrid case of age-disparate marriage and prearranged marriage, a Saudi Arabian father has recently betrothed his eight-year-old daughter to marry a man fifty years her senior. The Saudi Arabian government has refused to cancel the agreement, noting that the father has given consent. In such cases, tradition is recognized as an integral part of Saudi society, and the government has chosen not to intercede on behalf of the mother, who opposes the betrothal.
Various cultures have different prohibitions for legal marriage. For example, interracial marriage in the United States was strictly prohibited in virtually all areas of the country. On June 12, 1967, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction of an interracial Virginian couple by the name of Loving. Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter married in Washington, DC in 1958, and moved to Virginia. The law of Virginia, known as Virginia Code, reads as follows concerning interracial marriage,
Section 20-54 of the Virginia Code provides:
Intermarriage prohibited; meaning of term “white persons.” It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this chapter, the term “white person” shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this chapter.” Va. Code Ann. 20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.)
Virginia authorities convicted the couple of violating this law. The couple was found guilty by the State Courts, and was sentenced to one year in prison. The judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the couple agreed to accept banishment from Virginia for twenty-five years. The trial judge said, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay [sic] and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And [sic] but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages.[sic] The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Interpretation of divine authority would resume decades later to justify legal a certain other type of couple from legally marrying. The Supreme Court cited the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to explain their ruling. Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court reasoned that discrimination against couples based on their races violated the Equal Protection Clause of the last sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment. “In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally ‘odious to a free people’ and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose ‘independent of invidious racial discrimination’ The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a ‘rational purpose’ test under the Fourteenth Amendment” (Linder). In this instance of drastic societal change to a deeply rooted tradition, rational judgment rather than religious or popular rhetoric was used to decide what should constitute a legally married couple.
Homosexual couples are capable of all that heterosexuals are capable of doing, save reproduce directly via copulation—the physical sex act. However, legal marriage in the United States does not require that a couple have the ability, or even the desire, to produce children. Marriages between heterosexual couples are not annulled due to lack of procreative ability caused by injury, illness, contraceptive surgery, or lack of sexual activity. Heterosexuals that abuse or neglect children, or have been proven to be inadequate parents, retain their ability to be legally married.
Over the past decade, the American Psychological Association has done extensive research on the parenting abilities of homosexual couples. They have found conclusively that homosexual couples have equal and sometimes superior parenting skills compared to their heterosexual counterparts. An official statement of the American Psychological Association, written by Charlotte J. Patterson, PhD concerning homosexual parents reads, "In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." (Charlotte J. Patterson)
Therefore, exclusion of homosexual couples from the legal recognition of their marriages cannot rely on child bearing or child rearing ability. Professional research has yielded no significant correlation between parenting ability and the genitalia of the parents.
Although many people believe that a child should be raised by both biological parents, it is irrelevant to the legal recognition of homosexual marriages. Since heterosexuals are not required to demonstrate good parenting ability, nor are they required to have the ability to produce children, there is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Homosexual couples are subjected to tests of parenting ability, or tests of reproductive ability in order to obtain legal recognition of their marriages, while their heterosexual counterparts receive no such tests for the legal recognition of their marriages. The position concerning the parenting ability of homosexuals would require scientific data in support of the idea that children are placed at a significant disadvantage with homosexual parents.
Interestingly, such a study has never been verified as accurate. Such a conclusion would require the State to ban homosexuals from raising any children, including their own biological children outside of legal marriage, or adopted children. If accurate studies ever verify the claims of the opposition, they could be used to ban homosexuals from parenthood, but they could not legally be used to ban homosexual marriage.
Ironically, such a premise that children must by law, have both a mother and a father as parents, would directly require that single parents remarry or lose their children. If a married, heterosexual couple was to divorce, neither parent could legally keep the children of the marriage until they remarried. If a woman were raped, and impregnated, then she would be forced to marry or lose her child under the legal pretense that a child must only be raised by a mother and father, particularly the biological mother and father. Such a premise leads to ridiculous child relocation situations and overcrowded orphanages. A growing number of children are growing up in non-traditional families, being raised by aunts, grandparents, older siblings, single parents, foster parents, and homosexual parents. According to the 2007 Census, only 33.4% of children are currently living in households where their parents are married (U.S. Census Bureau). President Barack Obama was raised in a non-traditional household, and he became far more successful than millions who had been raised by both their mother and their father. Parenting ability is based on what is between the ears of the parent, not what is between the legs of the parent.
In addition, opponents to the legal recognition of homosexual marriage argue that if homosexual marriage gains legal recognition, the schools will automatically encourage homosexuality in children. The legal recognition of homosexual marriage has no control over school curricula. Schools that teach children about safer sex habits at appropriate ages may encourage youth to wait until marriage for sexual activity. The legal recognition of homosexual marriage will allow that message to have meaning for the percentage of students who are projected to identify as homosexual, based on the percentages of each generation that eventually realize homosexual attraction. Schools that do not address the broad spectrum of human sexuality become breeding grounds for the harassment of youth due to their perceived or realized homosexuality. Two eleven-year-olds have recently committed suicide after enduring intense harassment due to their perceived or realized homosexuality.
If homosexual marriage were encouraged for homosexuals, society may cease its pattern of antipathy toward homosexuals. Many hip-hop and rap artists say ‘No-Homo’ in their songs and males in the African American community recite this phrase without realizing its blatant discriminatory nature. People would be outraged if artists started saying “No-Negro, No-Christian, or No-Muslim” in their songs. In the popular culture within the African American community, it is apparently acceptable and respectable to degrade women, abuse them, be deadbeat fathers/mothers, sell drugs, participate in gang violence, and shirk education, but having attraction to members of the same sex is absolutely out of the question and totally unacceptable. Interestingly enough, society is more comfortable seeing two men holding guns, than seeing two men holding hands.
Next, a persistent argument used to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual marriage concerns the origin of homosexual attraction. Many people believe that homosexual attraction is part of an unnatural or learned phenomenon that can be selected consciously during one’s lifetime. For many years, religious groups have claimed to have the ability to ‘cure’ a person of their homosexual attraction through intense prayer, and divine intervention. Evangelical gospel performing artist, Donnie McClurkin says that he has been ‘healed’ of homosexual attraction through divine intervention and dedication. He has since compared homosexual attraction to diabetes, stating in a recent interview, “I don’t eat sugar, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to eat sugar.” McClurkin’s analogy of homosexual attraction to diabetes reveals that acting on attraction to members of the same gender is completely separate from having attraction to members of the same gender.
Opposing voices against legal recognition of homosexual marriage contend that sexual orientation is chosen, or can be abandoned, and therefore legal marriage between homosexuals is not an issue of civil rights, such as with the African American Civil Rights Movement, or the Women’s Equal Rights Movement. Evidence of homosexual attraction has been documented in nearly 1,500 different animal species. In a Medical Science News article, Petter Boeckman, academic advisor of the “Against Nature’s Order” Exhibit of the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo, says, “One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species” (NMN). Some of these animals include lions, penguins, deer, giraffes, and primates. Many animals, such as earthworms are exclusively bisexual, and hermaphroditic. Hermaphroditic humans would be inadvertently devastated by amendments to limit legal marriage to only “males” and “females,” because they do not clearly qualify for either classification, and would therefore be banned from legal marriage. Some hermaphroditic or “intersex” citizens were assigned to a particular gender by the decision of their parents at their birth or during their youth. However, sometimes their sexual attraction does not coincide with the intended gender assignment.
On an evolutionary level, animals that engage in sexual activity do so because it is pleasurable, not solely out of conscious plans to procreate. If species had only evolved sexual urges specifically to procreate, masturbation would be impossible. The human genome consists of hundreds of thousands of variables that determine the millions of variations between individuals. Although a gene coding for sexual attraction has not been isolated as of May 2009, it is unscientific to conclude that its existence is ‘impossible’.
In addition, arguments against the legal recognition of same sex marriage based on the origin or changeability of a person’s sexual orientation fail based on inconsistent logic. The premise that a person’s sexual orientation is not worthy of legal protection because it is not innate, ignores the fact that a person’s religion, which is protected by manifold laws, is not innate either. A person’s religion is by definition, a lifestyle choice. Yet, opponents to homosexual marriage fail to realize that although a person can certainly choose and change their religious affiliation, religion retains its legal protections. Religion is not a scientifically innate characteristic such as race or gender, and can be suppressed, or abandoned outright. Therefore, the illusionary requirement of a characteristic to be immutable or innate cannot be used to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual marriage unless each citizen’s religious affiliation loses legal protections under the same requirement. Hence, whether homosexuality is innate or learned is irrelevant in the legal arena in terms of equal rights and protections from discrimination under the law.
Furthermore, much contention surrounds the comparison of the campaign for equal rights for homosexuals and the campaign for equal rights for racial minorities. Opponents to equal rights for homosexuals argue that it is an insult to African Americans for homosexuals to cite similarities between the African American Civil Rights Movement, and the equal rights movement for homosexuals and bisexuals. During a Congressional Black Caucus, Georgia Representative John Lewis said, “I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation” (Gay and Lesbian Activist Alliance) Lewis was an avid civil rights activist during the African American Civil Rights Movement, and understands that discrimination is not limited to race, nor is discrimination acceptable when it is turned towards people based on sexual orientation. If the rights of African Americans were left to majority vote during the racist past of the Nation, the majority would have most likely voted to keep discriminatory laws in effect. The Court system has the constitutional obligation of protecting vulnerable minorities from the tyranny of the majority, often making decisions that society had previously considered unfathomable, such as with desegregation, and now with State Courts striking down laws that unconstitutionally discriminated against homosexuals.
McClurkin’s analogy of homosexuality to diabetes assumes that homosexual relationships are inexorably dangerous in and of themselves, as sugar is dangerous to diabetics. However, the physical threats of sexual promiscuity are not limited to homosexuals. Monogamous homosexual relationships are equal in safety from sexually transmitted diseases as monogamous heterosexual relationships. Due to stigmas in society on any type of homosexual relationship, there is not community or federal encouragement of monogamous homosexual relationships. Communities in the United States typically encourage their children to wait until they are married before having sex to prevent the spread of STIs including HIV and AIDS. The adage is wasted upon homosexual youth, who are reminded that they theoretically will ‘never’ be married. This has resulted in generations of homosexuals, who have no cultural incentive to have prolonged abstinence. The stage is then set for the stigma of homosexuals, men in particular, to be more sexually promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts. Each person is responsible for his or her actions, and risky sexual behavior for people of any sexual orientation is a sign of personal irresponsibility. However, it is important to note that the main factor that encourages men and women to be monogamous is societal pressure to have monogamous relationships recognized by the community and the federal government. Legal marriage encourages monogamy and discourages promiscuous behavior among heterosexuals, and there is no reason to believe that it could not do the same among homosexuals. Under the current system of discrimination, society inadvertently encourages homosexuals to force themselves into contrived heterosexual relationships to try to assimilate into the heterosexist culture and gain acceptance.
President Barack Obama is opposed to the legal recognition of homosexual marriage. He has vowed to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act, also known as DOMA, allows states to ignore the legal marriages of homosexual couples performed in one of the four states that legally recognize homosexual marriage: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. President Obama has promised to push for more legal benefits of civil unions, rather than legal homosexual marriage. He has also promised to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” policy, or DADT, is the U.S. military policy of firing members of the armed forces based on their sexual orientation if their sexual orientation is revealed, especially through marrying someone of the same gender. It will be difficult for President Obama to justify why he is willing to allow homosexuals to fight and possibly die for the country they love, but refuses to allow them to marry.
President Obama’s justification for his opposition to legalized homosexual marriage is based primarily on his religious beliefs. However, President Obama fails to realize that as President of the United States, he cannot require the nation to follow his religious tenets without strong legally valid, secular, scientific arguments. Under the same philosophy of leadership, a future Jewish President could justify a nation-wide ban on pork products because of his or her strong religious beliefs, and upbringing. President Obama is a brilliant and powerful leader. Eventually, he will realize the inconsistencies between his belief that religion should be separate from government, and his religious justifications for opposing legal marriage for homosexuals.
The founding fathers of the United States specifically built a secular system of government, in which the documents have no references to Christianity, and only minor references to deism. It is therefore unconstitutional to bar homosexuals from legal marriage based on religious tenets. If heterosexual atheists can get legally married by a Justice of the Peace without any church’s permission, then President Obama cannot bar homosexuals from full legal marriage based on the prohibitions of any particular religion.
The legal recognition of homosexual marriage would not force churches to recognize homosexual marriages. Currently, all churches retain the ability to refuse marriage services for any couple, for any reason they choose, and not face legal penalties. Catholic churches do not have to hold marriage ceremonies for interreligious couples. Churches that do not like interracial couples do not have to hold marriage ceremonies for interracial couples. Churches do not have to hold marriage ceremonies for atheists. Although many people do not approve of interreligious, interracial, or atheist marriages, these marriages are still legally recognized. The state cannot show favoritism, and only recognize marriages with which the majority is comfortable. Similarly, with the legal recognition of homosexual marriage, the State cannot ‘force’ people to like homosexuality, just as it cannot not ‘force’ people to like interracial, interreligious, and atheist marriages.
Many evangelical opponents to legal homosexual marriage use the Judeo-Christian story of Genesis to illustrate that their God intended for marriage to be only between man and woman, as seen with the characters Adam and Eve, who are believed by Christians to be the first humans created from clay by God. They contend that people should use Adam and Eve as models for their lives. However, it is unknown as to why these people are not consistent with encouraging Garden of Eden behavior. They want people to live man with woman, but fail to mention that the Genesis story also says that God intended that such couples live completely naked. Such double standards have been used for thousands of years to suppress women and minorities.
Another double standard is evident when opposition to the legal recognition of homosexual marriage is compared to the legal sale and distribution of tobacco products. Opponents to homosexual marriage say that homosexual marriage has the possibility of doing harm, but the use of tobacco products has been proven to cause bodily harm in all cases, in many leading to lung cancer and death as a direct result of tobacco use. Despite scientific evidence that tobacco is dangerous, groups against homosexual marriage are not concerned with eliminating a real danger to American lives.
As seen in the cartoon illustration (Sargent), organizations such as Focus on the Family, and the National Organization for Marriage disguise efforts to bar homosexuals from legal marriage with petitions to protect marriage. The man at the door asks if the efforts to protect marriage include prohibiting heterosexual adultery, divorce, abuse, and neglect, while the defender of traditional marriage suggests that protecting marriage involves preventing certain people from getting married. The marriage of homosexuals strengthens heterosexual marriage, because heterosexuals know that their partner has selected them, rather than another person of either gender. They know that their spouse is least likely to be a homosexual who simply wants to fit into society through heterosexual marriage.
The President contends that if civil unions are granted all of the legal benefits of marriage, then that will suffice. Separate systems have consistently been shown to be unequal by definition. In the Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education, it was demonstrated that separate is rarely, if ever actually ‘equal’. If civil unions and legal marriage were truly equal and marriage is truly ‘only a word’, then there would be no strong opposition for letting homosexuals use ‘only a word’ in a legal sense. There has never been such opposition to the ‘redefinition’ of any other term, because the redefinition and introduction of terms typically does not cause any measureable damage to society. If the President or any married heterosexual believes that civil unions and domestic partnerships are acceptable surrogates for full legal marriage, ask them to divorce their spouse and take them as their “civil union partner” instead of their husband or wife. Apparently, something only appears equal to those who are not facing discrimination. Marriage creates family ties that civil unions, domestic partnerships, and contracts cannot.
Slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy that holds that a primary action must never be taken, to avoid the consequences of a separate, often independent action. In terms of legal recognition of homosexual marriage, people often argue that if homosexual marriage gains legal recognition, then things such as marrying animals, marrying family members, and marrying multiple people will automatically become legal. Opponents use Canada as an example to illustrate this notion. In Canada, where marriage is not restricted based on gender, a Muslim man petitioned for and won rights to have polygamous Muslim marriages. Here, the valid arguments in favor of the legal recognition of polygamous marriage were valid before Canada legally recognized homosexual marriage. The legal recognition of homosexual marriage did not remove any barriers for polygamy that the Muslim man could not have removed without the existence of homosexual marriage.
The only way for a slippery-slope argument to retain credibility, is in cases where it can be scientifically demonstrated that the ultimate event cannot possibly occur independent of the primary action. For example, the legal recognition of homosexual marriage will open the door to the existence of homosexual widows and widowers. Here, homosexual widows and widowers can only exist if homosexual marriage is legalized. There is no possibility of the existence of homosexual widows and widowers without the initial action of legalized homosexual marriage. In cases such as animal marriage, animals do not have the ability to consent to human marriage, cannot sign, or interpret marriage documents, and do not qualify as legal citizens because they cannot pay taxes. Without the ability to consent to marriage, a marriage cannot take place. For example, a man cannot marry a woman if the woman is in a coma, or is otherwise unable to communicate the intention of entering into the legal institution of marriage.
In the case of legalizing incest, proponents of incest can present their cases for legalizing incest independent of the legal recognition of same sex marriage. The legalization of incestuous marriage would have to be decided based on the legal arguments presented by its proponents. Forbidding the legal recognition of homosexual marriage would not automatically prevent any other group from presenting arguments for the legalization of other types of marriage. They can succeed or fail independent of legalized homosexual marriage. The majority of countries and states that legally recognize homosexual marriage have not legalized polygamy, animal marriage, or incestuous marriage. Opponents of legal homosexual marriage use such ‘consequences’ as scare tactics. Unfortunately, their tactics have been working for years, just as the same consequences had worked for years to block legalization of interracial marriage.
Finally, the best analyses and dismissals of the opposing arguments are in the court decisions of states and countries where the court system has eliminated discriminatory laws that prohibited legal recognition of homosexual marriage. In states such as Iowa, where the state Supreme Court voted unanimously to end the state law, Iowa Code section 595.2 that restricted marriage to heterosexual couples, the court justices issued strong statements questioning why legal marriage in Iowa was suspiciously both under inclusive and over inclusive. On one hand, it barred homosexual couples from marriage even though they abide by Iowa laws, pay taxes, and fulfill all other legal requirements for marriage. On the other hand, it extended full marriage rights to heterosexual convicted felons, rapists, child abusers, drug dealers, and other such classes. The conclusion of the sixty-nine page decision, drafted with the eloquent language of the Iowan Supreme Court reads as follows:
Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has
been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding
plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on
sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the
fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution.
This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection
analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative
classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective.
Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the
remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner
allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage. (KATHERINE VARNUM, PATRICIA HYDE et al vs TIMOTHY J. BRIEN, In His Official Capacities as the Polk County Recorderand Polk County Registrar)
In conclusion, there is no argument specifically applicable to the federal recognition of homosexual marriage that is legally valid. The opponents to the legal recognition have the right to express their opinions, the right to retain their religious, traditional, and moral principles. They have the right to believe that homosexuality is wrong, and have the right to teach their children the same. However, legal marriages of homosexual couples must be scientifically proven dangerous to society to justify legal bans on their legal recognition. There are no accurate secular data to suggest that the legal recognition of homosexual marriage will inexorably cause the destruction of marriage, damage to children, animal marriage, or any other projected catastrophe. Eventually, the discriminatory laws against homosexual marriage around the world may become another forgotten aspect of human social oppression.
Works Cited
Charlotte J. Patterson, PhD. "Public Interest: Lesbian & Gay Parenting Conclusions." 2009. American Psychological Association Online. 23 April 2009
Gay and Lesbian Activist Alliance. "Testimonials: John Lewis." 1996. GLAA. 28 April 2009
KATHERINE VARNUM, PATRICIA HYDE et al vs TIMOTHY J. BRIEN, In His Official Capacities as the Polk County Recorderand Polk County Registrar. No. 07–1499 . The Supreme Court of Iowa. 3 April 2009.
Linder, Doug. "Exploring Constitutional Law." 2009. 18 March 2009
National Organization For Marriage. "Get Informed: National Organization For Marriage." 2007. National Organization For Marriage Official Site. 5 April 2009
NMN. News-Medical.net: 1500 Animals Species Practice Homosexuality. 23 October 2006. 14 March 2009
Sargent, Ben. Gay Marriage Comic. Texas.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2007 Census: Children Characteristics. 2007. 2 May 2009
