Alyssa Randall
Brandon Alva
ENGL 2010
Forgotten Values or Time For Equality?
Since the 1970s America's attitude towards same-sex marriage has gone from
hostile to accepting and everywhere in between (Avery, Alison). America has also
created a cycle of ruling in favor of gay marriage and then ruling opposed. Laws would
be created and then laws would be struck down. Evidence of this can be seen in the
Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) that was created to counteract states movements
towards accepting same-sex marriage (Adam, Barry D). This cycle of movements for and
movements opposed to gay marriage have gone on for forty years.
Now this topic does not personally affect me; I am not gay so why should I care
that same-sex couples can not get married? In doing research for this paper I found that it
was not going to be something that I could easily find facts for that would give good
reason to support or oppose same-sex marriage. I was not likely to come across research
saying that every time a same-sex couple marries, a baby dies and every time a same-sex
couple is denied marriage a unicorn dies. Although I am sure that if I searched the
internet long enough I could find "evidence" for each of these things. It became clear to
me that this was not going to be a decision that myself and people make based on solid
facts but rather based on opinions and personal values.
At first the idea of making a decision based simply on personal values and not
solid facts made me very uncomfortable. How was I supposed to make a logical decision
without facts to prove me right? That was when I realized that maybe I did not need to
come up with a logical answer because maybe the question is not a logical one. Maybe
the question of whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized is a question resting
entirely on Pathos. If this was the case I knew that my answer would have to come from
emotional source rather than a logical one. This is when I realized that I needed to see the
different sides on the subject of same-sex marriage to make a decision that I would feel
comfortable with.
So to get an idea of what other people believe regarding same-sex marriage and
why they believe that I interviewed eleven people. Of the eleven people four were female
and 7 were male. They were between the ages of 18 to 57 with an average age of 31.
Nine people were straight and two were gay. I asked each individual four questions, 1.
What are your feelings on gay marriage? 2. Why do you feel this way? 3. What is your
background (religious upbringing)? 4. Any friends or family that are gay? I chose these
questions because I wanted to know what someone felt, why they felt that way, what they
have been raised with, and how much contact they may have with someone who is gay
because of the inter group contact/conflict hypothesis (Dyck, Joshua J & Shanna PearsonMerkowitz). By the end of my questioning five people were in support of same-sex
marriage, five people were opposed to same-sex marriage, and one person did not feel
strongly one way or the other.
When I asked those opposed to same-sex marriage for their reasons this is what
they told me; it could open the door for the legalization of polygamy and underage
marriage, marriage is between a man and a woman, religiously oppose it, feels it is
unnatural, is morally opposed, employers with have to provide insurance, false marriage
for financial benefits, and kids need both a mother and a father. Some of these arguments
are serious problems that do need to be considered when proposing the legalization of
same-sex marriage. However, some of these arguments seem less valid. So I am going to
go through these reasons and either accept them or try to refute them.
First it was suggested that legalizing same-sex marriage could open the door for
the legalization of polygamy and underage marriage. This is a valid argument, albeit a
little slippery slope like. Allowing same-sex marriage would be changing the definition
of marriage and could open the door to these changes whether for good or bad. When
thinking about the argument of polygamy I did have to ask myself what is wrong with it.
If these are consenting adults why should I care that they are sharing a spouse? This
thought made me not think about this argument as seriously as I originally did.
Second, marriage is between a man and a woman. This is true the original
definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I can not argue with that, but I can
argue that just because something has always been a certain way does not mean that that
way should continue. I do not think it is fair to deny someone the title of marriage
because you believe them to be unworthy of it (Moody, Howard) and I think that is the
main point of this argument.
The third reason was because they are religiously opposed to it and I am going to
lump in the arguments of it being unnatural and being morally opposed to it as well. I was
not at all surprised to get this answer in fact this is why I asked the third question. Of the
five people who opposed gay marriage four of them are religious now and four of them
were raised religiously. Now as someone who was raised religiously but no longer
religious myself I could understand where they were coming from. When you are taught
from the time that you are a child to an adult that there is a right and wrong in regards to
some things it is very hard to abandon those teachings. I personally believe that religion
has become an excuse for people who oppose same-sex marriage (Brown, Simon)
because I was raised religiously and I do not see that as a valid enough reason to deny
someone of their rights. Now I agree with people like Maggie Gallagher when they say
that "moral issues can't simply be ruled invalid" (Gallagher Maggie). This is the same
thing that one of my interviewees told me, they said that they believe in moral absolutes
and that there is a right and a wrong no matter how our laws change. My counter
argument would be that if they know it to be right or wrong why do they care what is
legalized because they do not have to accept it personally, they just have to accept it
legally. Also according to their beliefs people will be punished in an afterlife for their
decisions, so they should have that peace of mind that regardless of what happens now
people will get their comeuppance. The thing that really needs to be looked at is the
relationship between church and state in our country (Moody, Howard). "The
government’s interest in marriage is a legal one that doesn’t care about the reasons for the
marriage. Leaders of any kind see the importance of marriage as a way to regulate social
order" (Moody, Howard). Religion does not matter to the government when it comes to
marriage and it shouldn't. Religion is personal and in a country that holds so many
religious beliefs I do not think it fair or wise to try to hold everyone to one particular
group's set of beliefs.
Fourth, employers will have to provide insurance. This was given to me as a
problem because it would mean that rates would go up. I also saw this problem be argued
in an outside source as well from the Family Research Council (Sprigg, Peter). Now these
people are right that would really suck for everyone's rates to have to go up and that
could make it so that some can no longer afford it. I agree that this is a problem that
would need to be looked at closely and could cause problems. Although it sounds pretty
selfish to deny someone a right because it might cost you more.
The fifth reason is that they fear it would create false marriages for financial
benefits. I see this as totally fallacious and in the same boat as thinking that same-sex
marriage will make people become druggies and alcoholics along with husbands leaving
their families (Eichenwald, Kurt). This reason makes it seem as though this is something
that heterosexuals have never done as well, or at least implies that it is not a problem
when heterosexual couples do it.
The final argument against same-sex marriage is that children need both mother
and a father. Now when I have tried to find research on this to either prove or disprove
this point I always come up empty handed. There are arguments that say that children
raised by same-sex parents are just as healthy as those raised by heterosexual parents. But
there are also arguments that children of same-sex parents are not as healthy as children
of heterosexual parents. The problem for me was that I could never find a reliable source.
The articles were either written by a group that was in support of the family (aka against
gay marriage) or groups that were promoting gay marriage and equal rights. I never
found an argument with the correct ethos to help me with this question. So if anything I
think that more research needs to be done with this question by scientific journals that do
not have a clear bias.
Now unlike the argument against same-sex marriage the argument for same-sex
marriage is much simpler. From the people I asked and the sources I have read there
seems to be one reason that they give for supporting same-sex marriage and that is
equality. They have argued that gay citizens should be looked at equally under the law as
heterosexual citizens. They argue that free people should be able to choose their spouses
and that gays are free people like everybody else (Getting, Nathan). Those I interviewed
that held this opinion, could not understand how people would want to deny someone
their happiness and freedom when they are consenting adults. They do not see it as fair to
be looked at as second class citizens and not equal to heterosexual citizens. The point is
also made that opponents of same-sex marriage do not have to agree with it personally to
recognize it legally. The Utah House Democrats minority leader Jennifer Seelig puts it
nicely, "We are proud to come from a state of such growing diversity, and hope that, in
this decision, we can respect and support people of differing views. We are all a human
family, a Utah family, and now we are a legally united one" (Edwards, Ashton).
Supporters of same-sex marriage are not asking that people change their personal beliefs
to agree with them, but rather recognize that legally they should be afford the same equal
rights. After interviewing these people and reading various articles I have to agree with
this argument of equality. I can find no reason as to why same-sex couples should not be
treated equal to heterosexual couples.
After all of my research and interviews I feel that I have reached a conclusion.
While there were more reasons for the argument against same-sex marriage I found only
some of them to be credible, or at least important to me. For me the biggest concerns are
the problems with the rise in insurance prices and the lack of credible research for samesex parenting. But even with these concerns, I can not get over the argument of equality. I
completely agree that same-sex couples should be held equal to heterosexual couples. I
agree with those that I interviewed who argued for equality because people who are
attracted to the same sex are people too. They are consenting adults who love each other
and I do not see how it can be fair to view their love as anything less than a heterosexual
couple. People who do not love each other are allowed to marry every day, so it does not
make sense to me that a couple who loves each other is not allowed to marry simply
because their partner is the same sex as them. That is why after all of my research I have
decided to support the progress of same-sex marriage in America. I believe that even
though complications may come, it is important to give same-sex couples the right of
marriage and in so doing further America's steps towards equality.
Annotated Bibliography
Adam, Barry D. “The Defense Of Marriage Act And American Exceptionalism: The
“Gay Marriage” Panic
In The United States.” Journal Of The History Of Sexuality
12.2 (2003): 259-276. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 28 Oct. 2014
The DOMA, Defense Of Marriage Act, reflects America’s counter mobilization
towards progress with gay rights. Legislature that would give rights to gays is
moving much slower than those of the opposing side. Compared to other
countries, America is farther behind when it comes to gay rights. Any time there
is progress it is quickly followed by movements to repeal. For example Vermont
granted full relationship recognition in 2000 followed by the rapid “Take Back
Vermont” movement. American resistance to same sex marriage lies in American
Protestantism, the labor movement, and gender and national identity.
Avery, Alison, et al. "America's Changing Attitudes Toward Homosexuality, Civil
Unions, And Same-
Gender Marriage: 1977-2004." Social Work 52.1 (2007): 71-79.
Academic Search Premier. Web.
28 Oct. 2014.
From 1977 to 2004 the attitude towards homosexuality and same sex marriages
has improved in America. That is not to say that there is no longer opposition, but
more Americans are starting to accept homosexuality. Homosexuals face
problems with tolerance and equal rights, in the work place, politics, education,
military, and gay parenting.
Brown, Simon. "Exile On Main Street." Church & State 67.4 (2014): 7-10. Academic
Search Premier. Web.
29 Oct. 2014.
The Religious Right are trying to stop same-sex marriages with laws that continue
to be thrown down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Apart of the Religious Rights
actions are the claims that religion is under attack and that is why they need to
create these laws. Religion has become an excuse for people who oppose samesex marriage. Religion is being used to create laws that only serve to discriminate
against gays and lesbians. Many of these laws are being found unconstitutional
and are turned down.
Dyck, Joshua J., and Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz. "The Conspiracy of Silence: Context
and Voting on Gay
Marriage Ballot Measures." Political Research Quarterly 65.4
(2012): 745-57. ProQuest. 28 Oct.
2014
The intergroup contact hypothesis applies to the idea that the more straight people
are around gay people the less likely they are to vote in ways that restrict gay
rights. However, research shows that the presence and proximity to large minority
groups triggers increased feelings of threat for dominant groups. This is called the
intergroup conflict hypothesis or threat hypothesis. The ability of non-gay
majorities to enact laws has contributed to policies regarding gays in the U.S.
Other research shows that actual contact can be unnecessary in creating either
positive or negative feelings for a group of people. For the majority of the
population the openness of gay populations in neighborhoods seems to have little
effect on social tolerance. However in populations with a predisposition to be
opposed to gay rights openness seems to instigate a threat response to marriage.
Edwards, Ashton. "Utah Officials React: Same-sex Marriage Legal in Utah, for
Now." Fox13nowcom. N.p., 6 Oct. 2014. Web. 05 Dec. 2014.
Quotes from various Utah officials reacting to the Supreme Courts upholding of
the legalization of same-sex marriage in Utah.
EICHENWALD, KURT. "Keep Your Facts Straight." Newsweek Global163.16 (2014):
18-20. Academic
Premier. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.
Anti-gay marriage arguments are not sound arguments and to not stand up to
scrutiny. Anti-gay arguments include religion and the idea of traditional marriage.
An even more ridiculous argument is that if gays are allowed to marry then
straight people will turn into druggies and alcoholics. This argument has no
grounds and is ridiculous. Their next argument is that straight men will leave their
families. This argument is not logical and does not make sense. The anti’s
completely look over divorce and how that is what actually makes a mockery of
marriage. The topic of children is also brought up in the anti’s argument. But the
data used is often inaccurate and it shouldn’t really matter if they are different
because that is the case for a variety of situations.
Gallagher, Maggie. "Marriage Rights." Los Angeles Times. 27 Jun. 2013: A.19. SIRS
Issues Researcher.
Web. 28 Oct. 2014.
“Moral issues can’t simply be ruled invalid.” Justice was not served when Judge
Kennedy overturned the Defense of Marriage Act in California. Attitudes between
gay marriage and abortion are similar. The government and elite are
delegitimizing Christian views with their rulings regarding same sex marriage and
abortion. People need to make their values and voices heard.
Getting, Nathan. "Gay Marriage Is A Fundamental Right." National Lawyers Guild
Review 70.3 (2013): 137-144. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
Gay marriage will become a Constitutional right in all 50 states, the only question
is when. The Supreme Court has established that marriage is an individual right
and a social good. The court asserts that marriage is valuable, free people must be
allowed to choose their spouses, and gays are free people like everyone else.
These assertions are providing the necessary grounds for which gay marriage will
be accepted. Court cases that concerning marriage between races is also examined
in support of gay marriage.
Moody, Howard. "Sacred Rite Or Civil Right? (Cover Story)." Nation 279.1 (2004): 2831. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
The gay marriage debate shouldn’t be about the legitimacy of a same-sex couple’s
love, but about the relationship between church and state and how they define
marriage. Our laws have been shaped by the influence of Christianity in the U.S.
The government’s interest in marriage is a legal one that doesn’t care about the
reasons for the marriage. Leaders of any kind see the importance of marriage as a
way to regulate social order. Opponents of same-sex marriages must believe that
gays and lesbians are not worthy of the benefits and spiritual blessings of
“marriage.”
Sprigg, Peter. "Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal." Gay Marriage. Ed. Debra A. Miller.
Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "The Top Ten Harms of
Same-Sex Marriage." Family Research Council, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.
Web. 28 Oct. 2014.
The harmful effects of legalizing same-sex marriage would occur both in the long
term and the short term. The harmful effects will be that taxpayers, consumer, and
businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships. Schools would
teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones. That
freedom of the freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.
The idea that fewer people will marry. Fewer people would remain monogamous
and sexually faithful. Fewer people would be married for a lifetime. Fewer
children would be raised by a mother and a father. More children would grow up
fatherless and birthrates would fall. Finally, the demand for the legalization of
polygamy would grow.
Williams, Reginald. "Same-Sex Marriage And Equality." Ethical Theory & Moral
Practice 14.5 (2011): 589-
595. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
Some incorrectly argue that same-sex marriage is not an equal rights issue. This is
argued because where same-sex marriage is illegal, heterosexuals and
homosexuals have the exact same right to marry. The right to marry should be
seen as a collective right rather than an individual right. Support for this argument
is that the right to marry cannot be exercised by an individual. These rights should
be similar to assembly rights.