Ethical Arguments for Legalizing Gay Marriage
Gay marriage has been debated heavily in recent years. In this ethical dilemma, there are two sides: people are either in favor of gay marriage or they are opposed. Those against gay marriage generally use a deontological argument or slippery slope arguments. Those in favor of gay marriage tend to use arguments for human needs, civil rights, and justice. The most ethical view is to allow gay marriage.
Methodology
Using arguments for human needs, civil rights, and justice, I will prove that allowing gay marriage is ethical. I will also refute the deontological argument and slippery slope arguments for banning gay marriage.
History of Gay Marriage
The issue of whether it is legal for same-sex couples to marry has been addressed in court cases since 1971. The first case in 1971 was Baker v. Nelson in the state of Minnesota. The Court determined that homosexuals did not have the right to marry because marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. Therefore, same-sex couples could not marry legally. In five other cases during the 1970’s and 80’s, the court came to the same decision based on the historical definition of marriage. The results of these decisions were consistent with the thinking patterns of the majority of the population during these decades (Cantor).
In 1993, with the case of Baehr v. Anderson, the state of Hawaii became the first to recognize the constitutional right of same-sex marriage. As a result of the Baehr v. Anderson case, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. The DOMA bill defines marriage as being between a man and a woman for purpose of federal statutes and it provides that individual states are not required to honor same-sex marriages from other states under the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause (Cantor).
In the Baker v. Vermont case in 1999, three same-sex couples that were denied marriage licenses challenged the Vermont Supreme Court. Two of the couples raised children together. The issue of this case was whether it was constitutional to exclude same-sex couples from the “benefits and protection” that are offered by the state to heterosexual couples. Since many children are now being raised by same-sex couples the court concluded that denying same-sex couples the benefits of marriage would serve to illegitimize the children. The Vermont legislature established civil unions in response to this case. Civil unions are legally recognized relationships that provide homosexual couples with many of the same benefits as married couples (Cantor).
In the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in 2003, seven homosexual couples challenged the Massachusetts Supreme Court when they were denied marriage licenses. As a result of this case, the court’s decision was that same-sex couples had a fundamental right to marry under the state’s constitution. The court stated that “marriage is a vital social institution” and it provides many legal, financial and social benefits to the married couple and their children. The court also concluded that their statute on the marriage union only being between a man and a woman was unconstitutional because it violated homosexual couples’ equal protection rights and their rights to due process. Following this case in February 2004, the county clerk in San Francisco began issuing licenses of marriage to homosexuals. However, in August, the California Supreme Court ruled that the clerk did not have authority to do that under the California statute of marriage (Cantor).
Argument I: Human Needs
All human beings have certain needs they should not be denied. While views differ on exactly what these needs are, a commonly accepted model is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. This model says that the most basic human needs must be met before other needs can be met. For example, physiological needs come first. If you were unable to eat, nothing else would matter to you as far as needs at that time. Once physiological needs are fulfilled, humans need to feel safe. This goes all the way up to self-actualization and transcendence. In between safety and esteem needs, are love and a sense of belonging. This can be viewed in many ways. Humans could need the love of their family and friends. This could also be viewed as the human need for meaningful and sexual relationships. If heterosexuals meet their needs for love by marrying someone of the opposite sex and homosexuals cannot marry, are we saying as a society that we do not want homosexuals to meet this basic need? It is unethical to not allow part of the population to meet this basic need for love just because the person they want to marry is of the same sex.
Argument II: Civil Rights
While many people think marriage is no longer a big issue, it still provides many important rights. For example, a spouse can make a decision in a time of illness and can still visit their husband or wife in the hospital when only family is allowed in. A spouse can also file a wrongful death claim and also can claim emotional distress when their partner is injured. Unmarried couples are denied these rights. Why should it matter if a couple is heterosexual or homosexual when important decisions about medical care need to be made? What if we put on the veil of ignorance, and you had to not see your significant other in the hospital because you were in a same-sex relationship? It is not ethical to give some people the right to marry, with all of these included rights, and not allow others this right to marry.
Many people think that civil unions are the answer. Civil unions and domestic partnerships give homosexual couples many of the same rights as married couples. For example, now many insurance companies allow a domestic partner as a dependent. However, looking back in history, we realize that this is a flawed system. What society is trying to do here is to create a separate but equal system to give the rights of marriage to homosexual couples, without calling it marriage. Previously in this country, we tried to have a separate but equal system involving African Americans and Caucasians and segregation. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal was acceptable. Later, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal was inherently unequal. This involved sending African American children to segregated schools. These schools were supposed to be equal, under the original ruling. However, these schools were given less money and did not have the same amount of resources. The schools were definitely separate from the schools that Caucasian children went to, but they most definitely were not equal. If same-sex couples are to have equal rights, civil unions are not enough. Same-sex couples deserve the same right to marry that heterosexual couples currently possess.
Argument III: Justice and Marriage as a Changing Institution
The definition of marriage is rather hard for the average person to come up with, as the meaning of marriage is supposed to be obvious. Dictionaries often only describe that marriage is between a husband and a wife, but fail to describe what marriage actually is. Only when gays challenged that they could get married under the legal definition of marriage in Singer v. Hara in 1974 did the court rule that marriage could only be between one man and one woman (Baker). This was only put in the definition exclude polygamists and same-sex couples. However, marriage is a changing institution. In the past, a husband had to take care of his wife; now both partners are equally obliged. A husband was also incapable of raping his wife in the past, according to the law; now wives are legally protected from sexual abuse by their husband.
The argument that gays cannot have children with each other is hardly a reason to keep them from marrying. People over sixty years of age are allowed to marry, despite possibly being biologically incapable of having children. Women and men who are infertile or impotent are similarly not banned from marriage. Although in the past, Hawaii did ban women from marrying if they were unable to conceive children. The main purpose of marriage is not to produce children; if it were, polygamy would be very popular. Gays and lesbians are by no means incapable of raising children however. In 1988 a study by the American Bar Association found that eight to ten million children are currently being raised in three million gay and lesbian households (Baker).
Refuting Arguments Against Gay Marriage
A deontological argument is based on duties and rights. This argument is that gay marriage is inherently bad, no matter what the consequences are. Saying that God says homosexuality is wrong or claiming that the Bible tells us that homosexual relationships are wrong is not a strong argument. Which God told who that homosexuality is wrong? Different people interpret the Bible differently, but even if everyone did agree on what the Bible said, not everyone would believe in it. These arguments just do not stand up. Back in Medieval times the population might have been easily convinced that someone understood God’s will. Now, despite being a fairly religious country, not everyone is going to fall for this argument that those who just happen to also be homophobic are against gay marriage because they know that God’s will is for gay marriage not to occur.
The slippery slope argument is that “same-sex marriage would start us down a ‘slippery slope’ towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences” (Bidstrup). People who hear these arguments are afraid that such absurd things will actually happen. Rather than recognizing that same-sex couples basically have the same type of relationships as heterosexual couples, people jump to conclusions that same-sex marriage would be as immoral as allowing a brother and sister to marry. There is nothing that shows anything of the sort is going to happen. In countries where gay marriage is legal, people are not asking to allow marriage between man and animal, brother and sister, or multiple partners. There is no evidence that these scare tactics have any base in reality. These tactics have nothing to do with keeping marriage sacred. Murderers, child molesters, drug dealers, and pimps are all allowed to marry. Most people would say they do not want to be similar in any way to these criminals. Yet the fact that these criminals are allowed to marry does not make people question the sanctity of their own marriage. This is because people who use slippery slope arguments to say that the sanctity of marriage will soon be destroyed if we allow same-sex couples to marry really are not concerned about marriage actually being sacred. People who use slippery slope arguments are actually just trying to turn a marriage issue around to their anti-gay issues.
Conclusion
Same-sex couples are currently being denied equal rights by not being allowed to marry. Justice is not being served, and basic human needs of homosexuals are not being met. When the opposition says that the marriage of two people of the same sex is an abomination in the eyes of God, we have to remember that the opposition has said this many times to avoid giving groups equal rights. It is not a reason to deny these groups equal rights as human beings and tax paying citizens of this country. The only ethical solution in this case, is to legalize gay marriage.
