Gay Marriage - Why Not?

Why Not? Same sex marriage in today's world

Many people believe that same-sex marriage will destroy or diminish the righteousness of marriage between a man and a woman. It is my true belief that same-sex marriage will have negative effects only on people who are extremely religious, or extremely afraid. Many religious sects have been ferociously fighting against the legalization of same-sex marriage. In every article, column, and essay that I have read there has yet to be one single individual, or group of people that are entirely against the legalization of same-sex marriage unless they are tied to a church. It is unfair and unconstitutional that a same-sex couple that has been together for many years, lives together and may even have children are not allowed the same benefits of an opposite-sex marriage. Church and state are supposedly separate, until god fearing representatives of the U.S. decide that they are against an issue they may not like, or agree with and then, and only then, it is "ok" to instill the morals of the church into the state.

The issue aforementioned has been strongly debated not only in individual states, but by the country as a whole. Most states (38 states total) have adopted laws and policies that allow the union of same sex couples and in a few instances even grant them marriage licenses, although they are not recognized by a single federal agency unless that license was granted in Massachusetts. In May of 2004, Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same sex marriage. In all states the marriage is nil and void in virtually every sense, besides to the marrying couple, and the few that may have witnessed the actual wedding, the wedding never took place. In the few states where licenses are granted, the license obtained is useless because the same sex couple is not allowed to register the license with the federal government. Meaning that all benefits opposite-sex couples receive are not obtainable by same sex-couples.

Most that argue against same-sex marriage say that marriage in its entirety is a "church" union that is overseen by god and has nothing to do with the state or country. A marriage is recognized by the church long before the federal government accepts the marriage license, and places the newlyweds into a specific tax category. If the "church union" notion is true, then why are opposite-sex marriage couples given different rights and put into different categories when dealing with taxes or healthcare? When filing taxes, opposite-sex couples receive several substantial tax breaks and actually receive more money when refunded. When enrolling in a healthcare program married same-sex couples often pay half as much premium as two separate individuals requesting the exact same healthcare limits would have to pay. In any sense that is discrimination. Discrimination against the sex of an individual, not the sexual preference of that person.

In a society where the lines of "morally correct" and "legal" are becoming more and more differentiated I think it would be absolutely reasonable to completely separate all aspects of church and state. The only viable solution would be for the U.S. as a whole to recognize the union of two people, regardless of sex or religion. As federal laws prohibit the marriage of same sex couples, those same law makers pay no mind to the fact that people of all faiths including those religions that are against Christian beliefs are allowed to marry, and receive all benefits of a Christian same-sex couple. This issue breaks down into a very one sided argument, people that are against gay beliefs are against gay marriage. There is a serious problem with a law that discriminates against people who have a different belief about who they can, or can not love.

In 2000, then-Governor Howard Dean signed a law granting civil unions to same-sex couples in Vermont, making it the most comparable option to marriage in the country. Both California and Hawaii have passed domestic partnership laws, which offer same-sex couples some of the benefits given to married people. Civil unions are a huge step in the progression for full recognition of same-sex marriages, but often grant only a fraction of the benefits of a opposite-sex marriage. In some states like Montana and Missouri, a man or woman that has a child, but has been granted a civil union to someone of the same sex by the state law loses all child visitation, and/or custody rights. Marry who you love, and lose your child. That is the option many same-sex couples are faced to deal with. Once again, discrimination in one of the purest, ugliest forms. Because a person has chosen an alternate lifestyle, he/she is stripped of all parental rights?

It is argued that same-sex marriage should not be recognized because opposite-sex marriages produce offspring, same-sex marriages do not. If this is the case, then infertile and even those who are much to old to produce children should be banned from marriage as well. (Keep in mind that these anti same-sex marriage views are by extremely religious groups of people.) Same-sex marriages are also viewed as being wrong because certain groups believe that in order to raise a "normal", "well adjusted" child there must be a Mother and a Father in the household. This approach obviously