Draft numero doso

Doug Pavlowsky
English 101, Section 056
October 30, 2007
Exploratory Essay
Marriage, Union, or None of the Above
“I Do.” Those two tiny words consisting of only three letters between them are causing some of today’s greatest political debates. The relatively new issue of exactly who should be able to speak those words and what exactly they will mean is stronger than ever. Gay marriage will be one of the biggest issues in the upcoming presidential election in 2008. There are three main arguments when it comes to the controversial issue of same sex marriage. The first argument asks why the government feels the need to prevent two people from being married if they are in love. The second argument agrees that homosexuals should have the same rights as far as the perks of marriage go, but marriage is simply not the right word for it. The final argument states that gay marriage is simply not right, and that it should be completely disallowed in our country. Now, each of these viewpoints has its strengths and weaknesses, some certainly more strength than others.
The classic argument in this raging debate is that gay marriage, unions, anything, is just downright wrong. This point holds that if we allow gays to marry, and adopt or have children through other means think of how the children will turn out! Two daddies would clearly destroy a child’s social networking ability. In fact they would probably all turn out with intense gender identity issues, or as serial killers. That’s what this argument states at least. Just recently a judge in Vermont settled a case that does argue strongly for this viewpoint. A lesbian couple, who were officially in a civil union, broke up in 2003. Unfortunately they had a daughter, who has been caught in limbo for the past four years, because of the custody battle for her. The baby was finally awarded to her biological mother, with visitation rights for the estranged ex-life partner (Penn 1). While it is good that the issue is finally resolved, the time that this took is simply horrifying. To have a little girl caught parentless for four years because no courts know what to do with a case that is so rare is simply unacceptable. This is the kind of thing that will really effect the long term development of a child.
In San Diego, the mayor has recently embraced same sex marriages for the first time. Unfortunately it was not because he thinks that gay marriage is the best thing for our country. His daughter came out of the closet publicly and only then did he embrace the idea of gay marriage. The mayor previously embraced civil unions, but now he believes that those civil unions are less than equal (Wockner 1). This is an argument against gay marriage in the fact that it weakens the claim of the gay marriage advocate on the count of their exigence. It shows that many people who are pro same sex marriage are so for the wrong reasons.
This brings to mind the following question: What right does the state have to determine who is allowed to marry who? This is a valid question. As a civil rights issue, it is not an issue. Obviously everyone should have the right to marry whomever they please. To disallow that would be, from a civil rights standpoint, unconstitutional (Walters 3). Truthfully, this is one of very few issues involving tolerance and equality that the United States is not at the forefront of. Several other countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and South Africa allow same sex couples to marry, and even Israel will recognize same sex marriages as long as the ceremony was performed outside of the country (Walters 2). That is not necessarily to say that Spain and company are correct, but certainly are more pointed toward equality. The main point of this argument is simply this: If a man who loves a woman can marry her, where does the government fit in to say that a man who loves a man cannot marry him?
The argument in defense of gay marriage gains strength with some impressive economical statistics, as released by the Congressional Budget Office of the Williams Institute. If gay marriage were legalized nationwide, couples would marry, and therefore move into a higher tax bracket, increasing federal revenue by four hundred million dollars to seven hundred million dollars. In addition to tax bracket shifts, many of these new, higher income households would get cut from Medicaid, saving the federal government fifty million to two hundred million dollars. In addition, uninsured gays would often begin to fall under their new spouse’s insurance, getting them out from under the government protection, and therefore saving the government about one hundred ninety million dollars. By far the largest economic effect that would be seen is an approximate two billion dollar explosion in the wedding industry. Total these numbers up and you’re looking at anywhere from $2.6 billion to $3.1 billion (Scott 1). This presents a strong argument for same sex marriage without even touching the moral aspect of the argument.
The same sex advocates recently gained the trump card as far as family values and morals go. The Disney Corporation recently decided to offer their “Fairy Tale Wedding Package” to same sex couples as well as the traditional heterosexual market. This is clearly a big deal, not only because of the what, but the why. Disney was not pressured by the government. In fact, the government, in general terms, is quite adverse to the idea of homosexual marriage. Disney was also not pressured by interest groups. No big political machine ran into Disney and said “Here’s how this is going to go.” No, Disney decided that they were going to allow same sex couples to marry because a same sex couple asked them, and they said yes. Not a high power political figure, not a fashion tycoon, just a homosexual couple. So Disney sat down with their executives and came to the conclusion that there was more to gain by allowing gays to marry there than to shut them out. This may not seem like a big deal, but it is! It’s a huge deal because the big business (don’t forget we live in a capitalist society) took a step around the government and jumped to the lead on this ever so progressive issue (Walker 1).
The next big viewpoint is the thought that gays should be able to obtain the same status and perks that married couples have, but it just wouldn’t be called marriage. This view is fostered by the dictionary definition of marriage. According to dictionary.com, marriage means “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” This clearly removes a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman out of the question. If that were to happen it would not be marriage, it is a literal impossibility. In New Jersey the law agrees with this idea. In 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey officially decided that homosexuals must have the same rights as a straight couple as far as marriage goes. New Jersey was then faced with the problem of finding out how to accommodate homosexual couples, while still protecting the English language. They chose to grant same sex couples the right to have official “legal unions” if they could not have marriages. These legal, or “civil” unions grant all the same rights as marriage, without calling it marriage. These so strongly sought after rights include family leave, adoption rights, changing a name without petition, worker’s compensation, and protection of pensions (Hausknecht 1).
The Archbishops of Canterbury, as well as 150 Episcopalian Bishops recently met to discuss the issue of same sex marriages. The final decision stands that the Episcopalian Church will “exercise restraint” in consecrating gay or lesbian bishops. This decision also led to the decision to not authorize the blessing of same sex unions, but still allows priests to “maintain a breadth of private response.” So basically, this powerful religious organization is still not authorizing gay marriage, but is certainly not completely against it, and will take it on a case by case basis (Phillips 1). This is important because it shows a large amount of weakening in the once powerful “religious right.”
This is an argument that has not been around for long, but seemingly will be around for quite some time before it is truly resolved. While different candidates have different opinions, it seems that it would take a lot to create a solution that would last to this problem. It is a very attainable goal, it will just take time. Every argument has it’s points, civil rights, definitions, and development, respectively. Each argument also has its weaknesses, certainly less clear cut. One argument is not necessarily stronger than the other, as it is a matter of belief, and opinion. One unique thing about this issue is that everyone has something to say about it. No matter how politically inactive or disinterested, everyone has an opinion. This is something that can be solved and can be solved properly, it just takes some critical thinking. Hopefully a solution is on the horizon.