There are several arguments support promote and oppose the legalization of same sex marriage. The first argument which opposes same-sex marriage is that marriage has traditionally been instituted between one man and one woman. The tradition of one man and one woman marriage is the only correct legal relationship in human culture (Newton 49). This can be traced from the old English law where under God’s law where all marriages that are contracted by lawful persons in the face of the church, can consummate with bodily knowledge and fruit of children (Newton 49).
However, the advocates of gay marriage argue that same-sex couples have the ability to maintain long and loving intimate relationships just like traditional couples and be allowed to get married. In fact, gay marriages do not pose any threat or harm to the community. Proponents of same sex marriage believe that every person, regardless of sex, race, gender or sexual orientation must be given the same freedom to marry. Same-sex marriages promote equality among same-sex couples. Hence, to disallow gay marriages constitutes a violation of the equal protection and due process clause of the Constitution. To restrict the benefits, protection and obligation of civil marriage to ordinary couples of one man and one woman violates the personal liberty and equality under the law. To allow the civil marriage to same sex couples will strengthen the importance of marriage to individuals and communities (Cahill 4). The present marriage laws which permitted the approval of same-sex marriages shows that Congress has taken a neutral stand on the sexual orientation of every individual. By allowing same sex couples to get married promotes equality of persons by treating everyone in a similar manner.
The second argument is that opposes same sex marriages is that same-sex couples do not have the capacity to reproduce or bear children. It bears to stress that there are a number of infertile couples who are permitted by the law to marry despite their medical condition. Thus, the requirement to bear children must not be taken against same-sex couples for the reason that infertile couples are allowed by law to enter a valid marriage. The opposite-sex couples are not even compelled to go through fertility tests before they get married since it violates the right to privacy. Marriage must not be focused solely on the concept of procreation since not all traditional couples produce children. In fact, there are some infertile couples who get married and maintain loving relationship and live together perpetually. Same sex couples are capable to carry-on lasting relationships like ordinary couples. In fact, some of the infertile couples are allowed to adopt if they cannot bear children of their own. Hence, same-sex couples have the capacity to raise children in the event that they decide to adopt. Gay couples have the ability to provide the love, care and attention to adopted children the same way given by traditional couples. There is no fundamental difference between lesbians and gay men in comparison to people with other sexual orientations (Newton 52).
The third argument is that the right to marry and to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right and a necessary aspect of human happiness (Goetting 138). Allowing civil marriages to same sex couples shall strengthen the importance of marriage to the entire community. The freedom of choice and the right to privacy among individuals must be upheld and respected when it comes to personal decisions. In fact, marriage is considered as a civil right and civil unions that should be given to all members of society regardless of sex, age, gender and sexual preference.
The fourth argument by the advocates of same-sex marriage is that to deny the gay couples to marry should result to the treatment of the gay couples as second class citizens. In the case of Goodridge v. Department of Health, it was well-settled by the court that the right to marry is a personal choice. Same-sex marriages must be recognized since prohibiting gay couples to marry will cause discriminatory treatment towards this particular class of people (Goetting 142). To disallow gay marriages will constitute to a discriminatory law that does not have a legitimate purpose should be considered merely as a bare desire to cause material and objective harm (Wolfe 95).
The fifth argument is that advocates of same-sex marriage argue that marriage is an exclusive commitment of two people who vow to nurture, love and render mutual support to each other by bringing stability to society (Halkitis 1628). The given definition is also applicable to same-sex couples who have chosen to build a family of their own, adopt children, and by providing the same unconditional love, attention and affection that traditional couples can give to their children. The duty to raise and nurture children can be fulfilled by gay couples who can provide love and guidance to their adopted children in the best way they can.
Finally, the support given by President Barrack Obama on gay marriages not only helps in advancing the civil rights of gay men. In fact, it will improve the health of the population. All gay men who choose to marry or not will reinforce the movement towards marriage equality. The enactment of this right will support the civil liberty and strengthen the social capital (Halkitis 1628).
Cahill, Sean Robert.Same Sex Marriage in The United States: Focus On The Facts.Maryland:
Lexington Books, 2004. Print.
Goetting, Nathan. “Gay Marriage Is A Fundamental Right.” National Lawyers Guild
Review 70.3 (2013): 137-144.
Goodridge v. Department of Health 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)
Halkitis, Perry N. “Obama, Marriage Equality, and the Health of Gay Men.” American Journal
of Public Health 102.9 (2012): 1628-1629.
Newton, David E. (2010). Same-Sex Marriage: A Reference Handbook. California: ABC-CLIO.
Wolfe, Zachary. “Gay Marriage: Accommodationist Demands Expand the Conception Of
Human Dignity.” National Lawyers Guild Review 70.2 (2013): 88-99.