Marriage Equality in America

Marriage Equality in America

The United States is in the middle of another controversial issue, same-sex marriage. Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender people living in the United States have been faced with numerous constitutional violations; both from citizens and the government of the United States. Denial of marriage equality is only one issue in a long history of deplorable treatment that the Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender community has suffered throughout the decades. From bar raids, arrests, and harassment from law enforcement in the 1960s to denial of equal protection of private property when one partner of a gay couple dies. The United States government took drastic measures by approving a constitutional amendment denying equal rights called the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Recently some states have recognized the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples and approved to sanction same sex marriage, whereas other states have incorporated constitutional amendments to deny gay couples equal rights.

Federal Law

According the Cornell University Law School, the United States Constitution 14th Amendment, section 1 ratified on July 09, 1868 states: 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 (para. 1).

On January 23, 2004 the General Accounting Office of the United States produced an update to an earlier report that was sent to Senator Bill Frist, Majority Leader of the United States Senate regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. The initial report submitted in 1997 identified 1,049 statutory provisions of the United States code that included benefits, rights, and privileges only available to couples that shared federally recognized marital status (United States General Accounting Office, 2004). When the updated report was submitted in 2004, the number of provisions requiring marital status was raised from 1,049 to 1,138. This report from the United States General Accounting Office clearly outlines the 1,138 provisions currently denied to same sex couples because the Defense of Marriage Act passed on September 21, 1996 prohibits these couples from legally entering into a federally recognized civil union (United States General Accounting Office, 2004).

The Opposition

The primary opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States are religious institutions that argue that marriage is fundamental to procreation of the human species. Supported by 13 states that have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage on a state level, and countless individuals that oppose homosexuality. The religious right of the United States is changing tactics of opposition from the 14th Amendment right to equality, and focusing on the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. In an essay by Jeff Jordan, “Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality”, he argues that it is sometimes permissible for public policy to discriminate against homosexuals because homosexuality is morally controversial (Beyer, 2002). Jordan attempts to use the Difference Thesis to support his position that there is a morally relevant difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, which in some cases, and areas of laws regarding equality justify differential treatment (Beyer, 2002).

Another popular position against same-sex marriage is the polygamy, incest, bestiality argument, commonly referred to as the PIB (Corvino, 2005). 

Supporters of the PIB argument, including U.S. Senator Rick Santorum believe that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead the legalization of incest, bestiality, and polygamy, all of which are commonly noted as unacceptable practices in many cultural norms (Corvino, 2005). In an interview Senator Rick Santorum states as quoted by, Corvino (2005): If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home,    then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. (p. 1). In the same interview Senator Santorum compared same-sex marriage to deplorable sexual acts like men having sex with children, dogs, and other cases (Corvino, 2005). Unfortunately, this argument has been a primary tool used by philosophers, Supreme Court Justices, politicians, religious institutions, and people within the general population (Corvino, 2005).

The Support

Beyer (2002) states “According to the Parity Thesis, there is no morally relevant difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals - the share the same moral status (p. 1). This position indicates that homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same moral basis, and are equally capable of adhering to moral norms of society. This position clearly shows that homosexuality is not a harm to societal norms, and courts throughout the United States have decided in favor of same-sex couples adopting children, and sharing in those states equal protection clauses. Marriage by definition is a word that falls into religious ritual, not legally recognized civil unions. The United States has a clear obligation to separate church from state, and in doing so must recognize that allowing the word “marriage” to represent or define a legally recognized civil union between two adults who meet the criteria of a functional family is a clear violation of such separation.

The ability to have access to the 1,138 provisions same-sex couples are excluded from, which include social security benefits, taxation benefits, and numerous other provisions afforded legally married couples is just one aspect of the argument. Another supporting position is health and mental wellness. The gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community within the United States is significantly compromised in regard to health care delivery compared to the population in general (Buffie, 2011). Recognition and legalization of same-sex marriage allows same-sex couples access to medical benefits provided by employers and reduce the financial burden on society to pay for uninsured same-sex partners, and children of same-sex households. Medical concerns related to minority-stress is a growing national concern, especially after the high number of teen suicides related to bullying (Buffie, 2011).

A study of 34,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexual participants performed by Hatzenbbuehler, McLaughlin, Keyes, and Hasin produced empirical data supporting the negative health effects of discriminatory policies directly related to the subject of marriage equality. This study showed that individuals living in states that did not recognize marriage equality had significantly higher rates of psychiatric disorders like mood and anxiety disorder, and higher rates of substance abuse and psychiatric comorbidity that those living in states that did recognize marriage equality (Buffie, 2011). Currently available is a vast amount of research data that challenges the stigma that children raised by gay couples are less likely to live a well-balanced, healthy life. In fact, these studies have provided empirical evidence to the contrary. The data produced by these studies clearly indicates no difference in the psychological health of children raised by same-sex couples and those raised by heterosexual couples (Weber, 2011; Lambert, 2005; American Psychological Association, 2013).

Conclusion

Same-sex marriage is an issue that many countries will face over the next decade. Emotions regarding marriage equality run very high on both sides of the issue; however, opponents of the issue have not been able to provide empirical data that demonstrates that same-sex marriage is a detriment to society. Supporters of marriage equality, including major medical and psychological associations have produced empirical data that demonstrates same-sex families are just as viable in regard to stability as heterosexual families. Marriage equality in toto is an issue of basic, fundamental rights as outlined in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and denial of these rights clearly creates a sub-classification of a minority population denied equal rights as heterosexual citizens.

References

American Psychological Association. (2013). Lesbian & gay Parenting: Theoretical & Conceptual Examinations Related to Lesbian & Gay Parenting. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

Beyer, J. A. (2002). Public Dilemmas and Gay Marriage: Contra Jordan. Journal Of Social Philosophy, 33(1), 9-16.

Buffie, W. C., M.D. (2011). Public health implications of same-sex marriage. American Journal of Public Health, 101(6), 986-90. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/867825961?accountid=35812

Cornell University Law School. (N.D.). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

 Corvino, J. (2005, April). Homosexuality and the PIB Argument. Chicago Journal, 115(3), 501-534. doi:10.1086/428456

Delaet, D. L., & Caufield, R. P. (2008). Gay marriage as a religious right: Reframing the legal debate over gay marriage in the united states*. Polity, 40(3), 297. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300103

Lambert, S. (2005, December). Gay and Lesbian Families: What We Know and Where to Go From Here. The Family Journal, 13(1), 43-51. doi:10.1177/1066480704270150

United States General Accounting Office. (2004). Marriage Equality USA. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

Weber, S. (2011). Impacts of legal relationship recognition of same-sex parenting couples on family health and well-being. Journal of Nursing Law, 14(2), 39-48. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/878896030?accountid=35812