Complete Name of the Professor
A very interesting question was posed by Stephanie Wang, a writer from The Indianapolis Star, which says, “Why do you oppose same-sex marriage?” It’s the same question asked by Sociologist Brian Powell from Indiana University who was conducting a research to see the responses of the people and if the same would match with the legal arguments to ban same-sex marriage.
Common responses were based on morality issues, indicating that people are sinners. The proponents, however, argued that denial of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Conversely, moral approval or disapproval does not make a very strong argument or makes it a valid and legal one either.
Steve Sanders, a law professor from Indiana University strongly stated that, “traditional marriages produce "wonderful benefits" for couples, society and children — and he thinks research will show same-sex relationships do not bear out the same effects.”
In a nutshell, Wang added that, “Powell's sociology research notes that public opinion on same-sex marriage has been changing, and he gives a nod to some interesting questions that could tendril off the concept of animus as the debate moves forward.”
Now that the verdict is out, while the LGBT communities are celebrating victory, other people remain reluctant to accept the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same sex marriage. So, why do we really oppose it and which side are we on?
As the author wrote, there is the issue of morality. From the beginning, people were thought that only a man and a woman have a right to matrimony and if it is anything but, it will topple the balance of society. We become sinners and are bound to be condemned to hell. People say that calling it marriage does not make it marriage. It has always been a bond between a man and a woman, which is by its nature geared toward the reproduction and instruction of offspring and the union and welfare of the spouses. The advocates of same-sex “marriage” suggest something totally different, which is the marriage between two men or two women. Think about the biological, physiological, and psychological differences between them. That alone makes it wrong. It also repudiates the explicit most important purpose of matrimony, the preservation of the human race and educating children. However, people have also forgotten that not marrying may result to cohabitation which also make us sinners and well, bound to be condemned to hell. One could agree that it is not normal and acceptable but those opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage may have forgottten that times are changing and without change, there can be no progress, be it in family or personal life. Times change whether or not society accepts it. As for the legality, the legislators have argued and studied the effect of the same-sex marriage over time. It has been debated many times over and since it has been passed by the Supreme Court, it only means that they, too, have adapted to change. However, the opposition’s point of view is understandable and legally valid, even. Since time immemorial, only man and woman can marry and procreate. It is written in stone and it is written in the Constitution. Same-sex couple cannot procreate the way a man and woman could and that is an undisputed fact. The opposing side further contend that the sanctity of marriage would be violated. It’s a strong argument which many may find difficult to accept but valid nonetheless.
As to the issue of Constitutionality, the proponents of the same-sex marriage do have a valid point. Prior to the Supreme Court decision, the Constitution only recognized the union of a man and a woman, with the exception of several States, however. What the opposition failed to recognize is that as individual, regardless of gender, everbody has a right to pursue happiness, it is one of the basic human rights one is afforded to, whether or not we are aware of it. If one is happy to marry another person of the same sex, it is his or her right to do so and no one else’s. It could be one of the reasons why the Court has decided the way it did. If a right as basic as that cannot be granted by the government and legislators to its constituents, what rights can they truly provide in a fast-changing world living in an even faster-changing society?
Another factor that must be considered in the pursuit of happiness, is the idea of love. It is universally accepted and recognized and no one could ever question it. If a person loves someone and wants to be with that someone, nobody can do anything about it. It is another hard fact which is, unfortunately, often disregarded.
“Animus” seems a little vague when described as a law that has no compelling public interest and is driven merely by a moral disapproval so strong that it causes harm to a group that's viewed as inferior. It cannot be said that the long-standing debate of same-sex marriage has no compelling public interest whatsoever. First, the LGBT community is not small in number, that alone stands for public interest. Second, the opposition even has a higher number, therefore, the issue about this actually revolves around public interest and nothing else. It is either one is against or for same-sex marriage and there can be no other more pressing public interest than a question pertaining to marriage equality. Coupled with the question of morality, clearly, based on the decision of the High Court, no harm came or would come to the proponents of same-sex marriage, which is the party considered as minority or inferior, so to speak. The former actually champoined their right on the historical decision which legalized same-sex marriage on all States. There could be no other stronger contradiction as that although the author wrote the article prior to the decision, so perhaps it can be considered as an oversight.
Regardless of the stand one takes, everyone has a right to marry and be happy however he or she chooses to be. At this age and time, it is no longer a choice of the government or the legislators alone because the constituent are more involved and public pressure is stronger than ever, hence, compared to Ancient times, the government the world over may now be swayed. Maybe not easily but can be swayed by public clamor, nonetheless. Whether we are against or for same-sex marriage, what we can do is respect the right of one another provided that he or she does not cause harm to anybody. Marriage is sacred, we all agree on that but at the same time, it is a fundamental liberty rights of an indivual and it being a right, he or she can also choose whom he or she wants to marry. The issue of legality has already been settled and although it may have turned over some rocks in the process, we must also respect the law for what it is.
In the United States, marriage has now become a union between two individuals, the gender requirement already irrelevant. Marriage, also termed wedlock, is a communally acknowleged union or binding contract between partners that creates privileges and commitments between them, between them and their offspring, and between them and their relations. The definition varies according to various nations and cultures, but primarily, it is a foundation in which interrelationships, usually sexual, are recognized. In some countries, it is proposed or thought to be obligatory before any sexual activity. Generally, it is considered universal. Despite the existence of the right to marry, one can also opt not to and such cannot be denied either, although sometimes, it varies when cultural relativism is involved.
Going back to the question the author posed, why do you oppose same-sex marriage or why don’t you? At the end of the long and endless debate, the choice really boils down to our individually and rights. There are things we cannot question and all we can do is accept it for what it is. Marriage is sacred, yes, but so it the right to choose who we want to marry and even the right not to.
At this point, it is no longer about the issue of morality or legality but rather of a right which has been granted by law. Therefore, whether you are in favor or against same-sex marriage, that right is yours alone and no one else’s. What we can do is respect the rights of each invidivual. It is not complicated and it does not require a change of Constitution or courtroom arguments that do not end. It is something instilled in us as human beings whether as a man, a woman, a lesbian, a gay, a bisexual or a transgender.
As the US Supreme Court decision says, “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were” (Ehrenfreund, “The One Supreme Court Paragraph”, n.p.). However, it does not mean that we all agree on that. In the same way, we can still oppose the idea of same-sex marriage. As indicated above, supporting it or not is a right that is our own but we must remember to respect each other’s choice.
Perhaps without realizing it, the author and the researcher did pose a powerful question and it invited us, the stakeholders, to weigh on the things that could change the course of history. But at the end of the day, whatever choice we make, it is ours to make and stand firm for.
Work Cited Page
Ehrenfreund, Max (2015, June 26). “The One Supreme Court Paragraph on Love that Gay Marriage
Supporters Will Never Forget.” The Washington Post, n.p. Web. 29 June 2015.