The Same-Sex Marriage Debate

With the success of shows like “Will and Grace” , “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” and the daytime talk show, “Ellen”, the American public seems more accepting of queer culture compared to previous decades. However, Bush’s use of same-sex marriage as a political platform to secure the votes of wavering conservatives proved otherwise. Though it is undebatable that the queer lifestyle is being more and more accepted, compared to other Western countries like Canada and Spain, America is still very conservative in their views on homosexuality.

Bush’s talk about including an amendment banning same-sex marriage during his campaign for reelection has been virtually unheard of after winning back the oval office. However, with the mention of such extreme measures, those in the queer community felt anger and betrayal for possibly being singled out in a national doctrine. This not only shows Bush’s views on stifling a whole population of people, but also that he believes he is important enough to make changes in a document with so much history.

He talked about the sanctity of marriage and protecting the family unit. Ironically, around the same time, celebrities like Jennifer Lopez and Britney Spears were going through brief marriages and anullments. The “sanctity” of marriage does not exist nowadays. The divorce rate is more than 50% which doesn’t even include all the people that are unfaithful in their marriages. Marriage should not be about religion or politics, it should be about love and committment.

The argument to protect the family unit is also unfounded. Traditionally, a nuclear family includes a mother and father. However, now a days, it is hard to protect America’s children from learning or experiencing domestic problems firsthand. A lot of parents are divorced, going through custody battles, dealing with alimony problems, having passionate arguments, deal with domestic violence, or raising children as single parents. The idea that preventing same sex marriage will protect the family unit is preposterous.

People in same sex relationships love each other just as any other heterosexual couple. It is not morally correct to decline people who love each other, who are in monogamous relationships, the right to marry. Most of the protest comes from religious groups, but as one should know, allowing a mass of people to bully a minority of people is neither just nor does it allow people their “freedom of choice”.

The idea that homosexuality is a sin is based on religion and even that is up for interpretation. Church and state should always be separate, but for some reason it always happens to find its way into our politics. Even if a majority of people do not favor same-sex marriage, it should not be Washington D.C. that chooses, it should be the States and churches themselves. Each state has different constituants. The more liberal states have their general view about homosexuality and the conservative states have theirs. One view being forced upon a whole population never works out, as history has proven time and time again. That is why our government is democratic.

In times when one can marry within 15 minutes in a chapel on the Vegas strip, during the same times when the family unit is crumbling, when extramarital affairs are the cause of divorce and break- ups, those that are monogamous should be rewarded. Despite the odds, there are couples that stay committed to each other for years and decades, that are able to deal with any domestic issues that may arise. These couples should be rewarded for their exemplary example of what love and commitment is all about. They are examples of what a family unit is. Most are heterosexual couples, but a handful are homosexual couples. Those that oppose same-sex marriage for reasons of “protecting the sanctity of marriage” and “protecting the family unit” should ask themselves if the reason they are against it is well backed up.