KarMel
Scholarship 2007
|
“Gay’s Rights, I Mean..Rights?” By Nicole
Tallon |
Desciption of Submission: A view from both sides of the gay
issue in
Same sex marriage is an ongoing controversy in the contemporary
world. Only a couple countries in the
world have given homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual
couples. Here in the
The most common arguments made are that marriage should be defined as a
man and a woman, that homosexual relationships are immoral and wrong. Peter Sprigg, Vice President for Policy at
the Family Research Council, claims that “homosexual relationships cannot be
[considered] marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary
condition[s] for a marriage to exist--namely, the union of a man and a
woman.” He believes that marriage should
not be open to people who just love each other and want to spend the rest of
their lives together. He pushes the
question of, “How far are we willing to go if love could just define a
marriage.” He thinks that, “If love and
companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason
to deny "marriage" to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult
child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual
relationship, or to groups rather than couples.” If the sexual part was added to a
relationship, he thinks it is closer to being a marriage but is still not
sufficient to define marriage. He gets deeper in his argument on, “what is
marriage?” and says that bearing children or having the option to bear children
should define marriage.” He used a quote
from Anthropologist Kingsley Davis, which stated, "The unique trait of
what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval ... of a
couple's engaging in sexual intercourse, bearing and rearing
children." Sprigg believes that
marriage needs to have children in order to keep the world moving. He uses another quote in his argument and
uses Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville and says, "Through marriage,
our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit
human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life." Sprigg thinks the only reason to marry is
to bear children and even if a heterosexual couple does not bear children, they
are still capable to do so. He says it
is an invasion of their privacy to ask them if they plan on bearing children
and homosexual couples should not have the same rights because we do not have
to invade their privacy to know they cannot naturally bear children. His main reason for that is, “There is no
reason, though, to extend "marriage" to same-sex couples, which are
of a structural type (two men or two women) that is incapable--ever, under any
circumstances, regardless of age, health, or intent--of producing babies
naturally. In fact, they are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual
act that results in natural reproduction (Sprigg).” (Peter Sprigg)
Marten van Mourik, a law professor at the Catholic University of
Nijmegen backs the arguments Sprigg made by saying, “You don't change an
institution with such a long history from one day to the next just to satisfy
the whim of one group of people … Marriage is a relationship between a man and
a woman intended to produce children. You can't get around that (
Sprigg said that marriage was around before the law and the constitution
so therefore marriage is something that should not be defined by legal standards. Sprigg claims, “At its heart, it is an
anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to
marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.”
President Bush supports banning gay marriage and agrees with Peter
Sprigg by saying, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think
we ought to codify that one way or another,” and saying, “Marriage cannot be
severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the
good influence of society.” Bush thinks that if gay marriage was allowed then
it would be detrimental to society and affect it negatively forever. Back in 2004 he said "If
we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from changing forever we must pass a
constitutional amendment.” He is not
against same sex couples having a relationship; he is against them getting the
same rights as heterosexual couples.
Therefore, even though he backs an amendment banning gay marriage, he
supports that states should be allowed to make laws that recognize other types
of relationships.
(Peter Brownfeld)
Some people against same sex
marriage are worried that if same sex marriage is allowed then children will
believe that same sex couples are the same as heterosexual couples. Schools have started adding sexual
orientation as a part of their non-discrimination laws. They think that gay activists will bring
their views into the school and put them into their curriculum. Linda Harvey, president of Mission
“Every student will
be taught that, of course, abstinence until heterosexual or homosexual marriage
is fine if that's one's choice. But since pregnancy isn't a danger for
homosexuals, sex can be a wonderful option for younger and younger people – as
long as it's carried out "responsibly," of course – like brushing
one's teeth.”
With all of the arguments made
against same sex marriages put aside, Gay and Lesbian rights activists strongly
believe that if an American wants to have a same sex marriage, it is a
constitutional right. They strongly
advocate that “there is no constitutional basis for denying gay couples
marriage, and every constitutional reason why our government should actively
pursue legalizing gay marriage in order to give gay men and lesbians their
rights as equal citizens of the United States and to ensure their inalienable
right to the pursuit of happiness that every American is guaranteed. Our
government's purpose is to defend the rights of the people and in this instance
our government has undoubtedly failed in its duties” (
“Why civil union isn't marriage,” (2)
argued against the miscegenation laws, saying, “The right to marry whoever one
wishes is an elementary human right compared to which the right to attend an
integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go
into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's
skin or color or race are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right
to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution are
secondary to the inalienable human rights to `life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness' ... and to this category the right to
In Leah’s extensive
research on the defense of gay marriage, she also used Sullivan, senior editor
at the
Peter Sprigg made an argument
against same sex marriage claiming that marriage is defined as bearing
children. Defenders of same sex marriage
counter his argument by saying:
"Consider
this. If there is a necessary link between marriage and procreation,
strange consequences would follow. A state could and, to be consistent,
should prohibit marriage in which one or both partners are sterile or
impotent. If procreation is the essential goal of marriage, why should
postmenopausal women be allowed to marry?
Surely, discrimination against sterile, impotent, or aged couples would be
unacceptable to citizens of many different perspectives. The rationale
would be that marriage serves functions that are as important as, if not more
important than, procreation, including interpersonal commitment, religious or
moral expression, sexual satisfaction, and the legal entitlements associated
with spouse hood. If elderly, sterile, or impotent couples cannot be
denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and
procreation, neither can lesbian or gay couples be denied the right for that
type of reason (
Gay and Lesbian right’s advocates always get the argument handed to them
that children coming from gay couples are harmed by their environment. Leah Moore claims that there has never been
any evidence supporting that whether the child was biological or adopoted. She used a quote from, T. Richard Sullivan,
PhD affiliated with the School of Social Work, University of British Columbia,
and Albert Baques, social worker with the B.C. Ministry for Children and
Families, and he argued, “The assumption
that a gay and lesbian orientation is anathema to child rearing reflects
homophobia and the idealization of a particular family structure that is
assumed to be morally superior…[In fact though, research shows that] no
differences in well-being and normative functioning have been found between
children reared by heterosexuals and those raised by lesbian or gay
parents. “The fear that children raised by homosexuals will grow up to be
lesbian or gay suggests that it would be awful if that were the case. In
order to prove that they are worthy parents, lesbians and gay men have had to
prove that they are not likely to raise children who will grow up to be like
them (Benkov).” Despite the fact that twelve different
samples including studies of over 300
offspring of gay or lesbian parents have indicated no evidence of significant
disturbances in the development of sexual identity (Moore 8).
The fight for homosexual rights is similar to the struggle for women’s
rights and the approval of interracial marriage. Through history these groups
recognized a flaw in the constitution and presented the issue to the
government, but both issues were never solved without persistence and a
rigorous battle. The issue I have with the government in illegalizing gay
marriage is like of the argument on women’s rights and interracial marriage,
the legalization of gay marriage is supported by the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment because not allowing a same-sex couple the right to marriage is
discrimination of gender.
Gay and Lesbian Americans are being forced to continue living normally
in a nation where the majority believes their way of life is wrong. These
homosexuals have to watch their rights, dignity, and happiness be taken from
them just because they happen to believe differently. The government says, ‘it
is against what this country was founded on,’ which does not successfully
support their wish to ban gay marriage because this country was founded by one
group with one religion and for the argument made to be solid this entire nation
would have to practice the same faith and belief system. In the first
amendment, freedom of religion is clearly stated; that every American has
rights to their own beliefs. If, by law, every American has a right to believe
what they want and practice what they wish than how can a law be made against a
group of people just because they believe a certain way? How can the government
continue to deny the contradictions their arguments are blatantly making?
Somewhere along
I agree with Sprigg, that you cannot make a change for just one group of
people, but in the same respect a law should not be able to be made based on
what one group of people believe. I do not want a change in the Constitution;
all I want is the Constitution to be followed. The nation that advertises each
individual’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is the same
nation that is taking all of those things from me. I am an American and I
should have the same rights no matter my sexual orientation. Gay marriage is an
issue that has been handled wrongfully and misconstrued. By the lack of support
for gay marriage, our government has changed the view on homosexuals. Instead
of being looked at as people with needs and feelings, we are simply looked upon
as gay.
Bibliography
Bush, George. “President Calls for Constitutional Amendment
Protecting Marriage”
July. 2006.
<
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sitemap.html>
Harvey, Linda. “What homosexual
'marriage' will mean to
Net Daily. 2003.
< http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33660>
Moore, Leah. “Points In Defense of Gay Marriage.”
<http://www.angelfire.com/
Sprigg, Peter. “Questions and Answers: What's Wrong With Letting
Same-Sex Couples
‘Marry?’” Family
Research Council.
<http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=if03h01>