[ I have decided to keep this fairly informal and as such it contains no citations. I welcome any constructive feedback or objective argument but reserve the right to delete anything that I deem inappropriate. This story is syndicated from its primary location here. --ed ]
Hilary Goodridge wants to marry her life partner, but same-sex marriage is not recognized by Massachusetts. She sues the state, claiming that, by excluding her from the right to marry, they violated aspects of the state's marriage statutes.
The trial court denied this claim, finding that the marriage statute doesn't in fact permit same-sex marriage.
On appeal, the trial court decision was remanded with a 180 day stay to give an opportunity to the legislature to address the issue. The appellate court's decision relied mostly on individual liberty and equality safeguards in the Massachusetts constitution, says that it was wrong.
The government's argument for prohibiting same-sex marriage was that the ban would:
- provide a favorable setting for procreation;
- ensure a two-parent family with one parent of each sex for child rearing;
- preserve state and private financial resources.
The appellate court discusses why each of these arguments are faulty.
The big problem with the first point is that procreation is not a "necessary component" of civil marriage. After all, I can get married to a woman if I'm unwilling or even physically incapable of having children.
The other point they made was that banning same-sex marriage would not increase opposite-sex marriages in which children were raised. I'll discuss this a bit more later, but the premise here is that people are going to get married one way or another.
The final point is based on the premise that same-sex couples are allegedly more likely to be financially independent than heterosexual couples. The court held that a ban on same-sex marriage was not justified by this fact. Again, financial dependence is not a necessary component of marriage - I sincerely doubt you will ever hear this reasoning applied to heterosexual marriage. Can you imagine if a rich woman and a rich man couldn't wed because neither were financially dependent on each other?
In response to the court's turn to the legislature, the Massachusetts Congress proposed a bill that established the concept of a civil union. It gave homosexual couples all the same rights as married heterosexual couples with one catch - they just can't call it marriage.
When the bill and associated questions were brought before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, it was rejected. The big problem here is that, even if the rights are the same, the mere fact that they must call it something else is in and of itself discriminatory. As they pointed out, "the history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."
The fact is there are sometimes good social and political reasons to reward what we consider ideal behavior. If we rely on this reasoning, it is based on the assumption that homosexuality is a conscious decision based (at least partially) on the right to marry.
There are plenty of scientific discussions on whether someone is "born gay", and I'm not going to get into that too much here. I do believe that, if sexuality is not predetermined, there are at least strong predispositions. If this is the case, treating a particular group differently, especially when it is not necessarily a choice to join that group, is discriminatory and patently unconstitutional. Can you imagine if the government didn't allow marriage of black or Hispanic couples?
Obviously, the whole 'born gay' argument is a little weak right now. A lot of the discussion against gay marriage rests on the idea that homosexuality is "contagious" and that children raised in homosexual households are going to learn to be gay. I'm sure there have been plenty of studies in this space, but just because your parents are gay doesn't mean you are necessarily going to be gay. The only thing I think it really guarantees is that you're more likely to be accepting of others different from yourself.
Fear and uncertainty breeds hatred, after all.
The other point to keep in mind here is that we are discussing the civil contruct of marriage - that is, as recognized by the government. It is important to separate the moral and religious underpinnings that are closely associated with what many normally think of in terms of marriage. Freedom of religion is an essential First Amendment right, and the separation of Church and State is critical to properly preserving this right.
A good example of this is divorce. Catholicism does not allow divorce, but the government does. Allowing same-sex marriage does not mean that their Church must necessarily accept those vows - only that the government does.
I haven't heard a single compelling reason on why same-sex marriages should be prohibited other than 'it's morally wrong'. There are times where it is right to reward what we consider proper behavior, but in doing so you will necessarily discriminate against another group - and thus you need a valid, non-arbitrary justification.
Unless someone can come up with a good objective reason as to why homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, the ban on gay marriage is wrong. I don't believe such a reason exists.