Exploratory Paper: Should Same Sex Marriage Be Legal?

Exploratory Paper: Should Same Sex Marriage Be Legal?

The proposed legalization of same-sex marriage is one of the most significant issues in contemporary American family law. As a heavily campaigned development currently discussed in law assessment; these extremely confrontational and debatable political questions are facing present day American courts. If same-sex marriage is legalized, its affect on the parents, children, same sex couples, families, and the social and political world will be astronomical. The arguments surrounding the issue though confrontational nonetheless are easily seen from a wide array of perspectives. One of the perspectives states that marriage is a promise to a spouse to stay loyal and faithful in all aspects of the words. The act of marriage includes financial, legal and social responsibilities for each partner. No matter the composition of the couple, the rules of marriage are the same from most every angle. In the act of marriage two adults bond and lawfully and often, religiously, make a promise to take on its responsibilities. The greatest question, however, is to the sole reason as to why homosexual marriages should be declared illegal or nonexistent.

The acceptance of Marriage in society has changed throughout the years. During the mid 20th century, divorce was frowned upon and interracial marriages were unheard of. Now, both are much more accepted and have only become accepted by time and the evolution of society. Same sex marriage though a somewhat newer concept coincides with the acceptance of divorce around the mid 20th century. Though acceptance of same sex marriage continues to increase many communities still find it shocking. Laws are being created all over the country, in different states, to either stop or support homosexual relationships.

The state of California has stated two main reasons why same-sex marriage should not be legalized. Argument one says the only legitimate purpose of marriage is to reproduce and create life together in stable units. California explains that since same-sex couples cannot produce children, they should not be able to marry. The other argument states that only sexual relations intended for reproduction are morally and socially acceptable, and that marriage should be limited to those who engage in acceptable sexual relations (Wald, sec. 56).

Another argument presented to turn away the idea of same gender marriages questioned the parenting and safety of raising a child in a homosexual home. Those against the idea say "it is better for children to be raised by two opposite-sex married parents, claiming that children need parents of both sexes as role models" (Wald, sec 47). They believe that a child raised by a homosexual couple will not be happy or stable in a family situation such as that. However, debaters say that hundreds of thousands of children all over the nation, live with single gay parents, or homosexual parents that do have a partner. The argument at hand questions, would the child benefit if the partners were married? The child would gain more of a family stability if the partners were to marry and the non- biological parent could adopt the child. This would give the child a more "traditional" and "normal" family value and lead to less confusion. (Wald, sec. 48)

The state of California recently voted on Proposition 22, a law to ensure that the state will not tolerate or allow marriages of the same sex. It declares, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." (Ben White Washington Post) The proposition held 63 percent of votes in favor of the ban and only 37 of the votes against. The law was passed and made California the 31st state to ban gay marriage (Wehmeyer, par 1).

Supporters of gay and lesbian unionization were furious with the results of the voting. Feeling stripped of their dignity and rights; homosexuals feel that the law is just one more prejudice against them. "I would like the ability," says Laura Weinstock, a Californian citizen and lesbian, "to have the equal benefits and protections of marriage ... and respect." As put by one political advertisement, "'It [Proposition 22] would legalize the discrimination against gay and lesbian families'" (Whemeyer, par. 1)

Opponents had several reasons of why Proposition 22 should have been voted against. They argued that the proposition is unnecessary, as well as discriminatory and prejudiced. The unconstitutionality of the law helps begin a "slippery slope" to discrimination in other areas like employment, housing and health care.

Supporters of Proposition 22 say it advocates not prejudice or discrimination