Burgett 1

Cody Burgett

Professor Iddah Otieno

English 102

16 April, 2010

Demise of America: Death by Discrimination

Same-Sex marriage is a continuing debate. America has seen many different arguments

on the subject. Between religious and non-religious groups, conservatives and liberals, the stance

on same-sex marriage has become controversial. Through legalization we will see a growth in

the economy, longer life spans of individuals, and the end to sexual orientation discrimination.

Conservative and liberals, there has not been any conclusion or common understanding on the

subject. In order to America to continue to grow as a nation, and to rid itself of discrimination,

same-sex marriage must be legalized to eliminate the last great form of denial of equality.

To better understand the debate at hand, we must first define key terms. Webster

provides multiple definitions of marriage. One definition states it is the joining together of a man

and woman in a sensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. Another definition of

marriage further includes individuals of the same sex. There is no clear cut definition of

marriage, and individuals continue to argue what traditional marriage means. In 1922, authors of

the book, The History of Human Marriage, made their own attempt at defining marriage. These

authors evaluated every aspect of marriage, but no aspect could include reasoning for same-sex

(Westermarck 203-205).
 Burgett 2

Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) is the joining of two individuals of the same sex in a

consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. This definition is ideal, however isn’t

true. There are only five states in the US in which same-sex couples can legally marry. Those

states include: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. Other states

recognize SSM, but couples are not allowed to actually marry in those states. States recognizing

SSM are New York, California, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Washington, DC. Marriages

must be performed elsewhere to be recognized in these states. Individuals in SSM are given

equal rights as those individuals in a tradition heterosexual marriage including state and federal

rights (National Conference of State Legislatures).

What is a Civil Union? A civil union or a domestic partnership is a legally recognized

union, while similar to marriage, civil unions deny rights on a federal level. Civil unions are only

recognized on state level. In 2000, the state of Vermont was the first state to offer civil unions,

but due to President Clinton’s U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states

were not required to honor these unions. With the labeling of civil unions, same-sex couples are

denied 1,138 rights which are afforded to married couples. According to the article from

religioustolerance.org, these rights include but are not limited to: joint parenting; joint adoption;

benefits such as annuities, social security, and Medicare; status as next-of-kin for hospital visits

and medical decisions; and joint insurance (Myers).

You may ask yourself, what is holding the US back legalizing gay marriage across the

country? A mass majority of the opponents of same-sex marriage are individuals from religious

organizations, churches, and conservative parties. Homosexuality is not morally right according

to Christian belief, therefore why should homosexuals be given the right to be joined by law to

practice what the bible states is an “abomination.” Conservative individuals, while they may not
 Burgett 3

feel homosexuality is immoral, they do not see a reasonable circumstance for which same-sex

couples should be given the same financial and federal rights afforded by marriage. These

opposing few, believe the spousal benefits would put a financial burden on an already strained

economy. Also, some individuals feel SSM would devalue “traditional” marriage of one man,

one woman. One individual compared SSM to counterfeit money, and how fake money devalues

the real dollar.

Those supporting SSM are individuals usually from liberal parties, Gay and Lesbian

rights foundations, and equal right supporters. Their argument is clear and simple; give equal

rights to same-sex couples. It is argued; in the states permitting gay marriage, their economy has

seen a boost. Arguments stating the wedding industry alone would see a $17 billion increase in

revenue if all 50 states legalized gay marriage (Kostigen).

The United States continues to progress in the area of equality. Blacks can marry whites,

woman can vote, and schools are no longer segregated.. A solution will come of the struggle to

legalize Same-Sex marriage. By denying rights to individuals of same-sex couples is against

what the U.S. stands for, freedom. We must push for equality. Same-sex marriage in no apparent

way opposes a threat to heterosexual couples and their own marriages. By standing back and

allowing the discrimination to continue toward homosexual couples, and denying those

individuals same rights afforded by marriage, we are only crippling the culture and future of this

country.

Same-Sex marriage should be legalized for a number of reasons. There have been

numerous attempts to pass an amendment banning same-sex marriage and ban the future of the

ability for same-sex marriage to be legalized. The problem with this, there has never been a
 Burgett 4

majority vote large enough to pass such an amendment, therefore there is the idea that same-sex

marriage will be legalized. A ban on same-sex marriage in no way benefits the country; neither

would such a ban protect heterosexual marriage (Head). Head further states that the battle for a

federal marriage amendment is nothing but a political shenanigan. Numbers have increasingly

changed to display the change in support of same-sex marriage. In 1996, 49% supported same-

sex marriage, and the number grew to a whopping 66% in 2005 with only 32% opposing.

Therefore, we see a drastic shift in the supports of same-sex marriage. This being the case, there

is no battle to be fought. Same-sex marriage should be legalized [ CITATION Mil08 \l 1033 ].

As previously stated, the denial of same-sex marriage to homosexual couples eliminates

many federal benefits of marriage. One of these benefits being next-of-kin hospital visits and the

authority to make medical decisions for one’s partner should they become incompetent to make

their own. Just recently, a lesbian individual was denied visitation rights to her ailing partner.

Her ailing partner was incapacitated, and because this individual was not next-of-kin, she wasn’t

able to make medical decisions or even visit with her loved one. This was someone she had lived

with, loved, and cared about for many years. To be denied the right to be there with your partner

while they are ill is a great stressor and burden. This lady eventually passed (Pope).

One of the opposing groups of SSM, as previously mentioned, is those of Christian faith.

Individuals tend to site scripture when presented with the topic of homosexuality and SSM. The

problem with this, the bible is a book filled of hypocrisy. By citing scripture, these individuals

are only weakening their credibility to why same-sex marriage should not be legalized. If

traditional marriage is what the bible claims to be one man, one woman. How is that Abraham,

“the great,” was able to cheat on his wife because she was barren. Also, many stories of

polygamy are introduced in the bible. Jacob had children with four different women. The bible
 Burgett 5

never clearly defines marriage as one man, one woman (Olson). Also, in the book of Matthew,

Jesus himself states there will be no marriage in heaven. Also, divorce is condemned by Jesus.

What ground for argument is there for those individuals practicing infidelity and divorce to use

the bible as their means of supporting the ban on same-sex marriage?

The list continues as to why SSM should be legalized. The economy would benefit.

Studies do show that over a $17 billion increase in revenue would occur if all states legalized

SSM (Kostigen). With the legalization of SSM, all social security benefits of the deceased

partner would be given to the living partner. Also the government would save money on

supplemental security income, Medicaid, and Medicare. The idea of gifting and caring also

works in the favor of boosting the economy. Purchasing of additional gifts will provide

additional funds back to the economy (Kostigen). SSM should be legalized because of the

benefits for the economy.

Same-sex marriage goes along with what America stands for, and what is right for every

individual of this country. America has fought through many different types of discrimination.

Racial segregation, voting rights of woman and blacks, and the right for interracial marriages,

these are all barriers in which America has broken. Same-sex marriage should be legalized to end

what seems to be the last bit of equality discrimination. Homosexual individuals are contributing

members of this society. They are doctors, lawyers, teachers, police officers, and good

upstanding citizens of our country. Why should an individual who contributes the same as a their

neighbor be discriminated against because of sexual orientation?

It is important for a person to feel accepted and acknowledged. Without the acceptance

and acknowledgment of one’s lifestyle, this can prove detrimental to ones mental health. The
 Burgett 6

legalization of SSM would in no way degrade society, but would better society as a whole, with

everyone as equals.

Those opposing same sex marriage, tend to oppose homosexuality as well. This

individuals believe the homosexual lifestyle should not be encouraged. The life expectancy of

homosexual individuals is thought to be 10 years less on average of those of heterosexual person

(Balanced Politics). I understand this point of view; we should just condemn homosexuality all

together so people will live longer. I think we need to look at this from another point of view.

Studies show that stress plays a huge role in the development of disease processes, and aides the

breaking down of the body with long periods of stress (Collingwood). Married couples are better

off financially, emotionally, and medically (Moore). For a homosexual who is degraded and

discriminated against based on sexual orientation is a stressor in itself. The legalization of same-

sex marriage and allowing the acknowledgment of one’s lifestyle would relieve that stressor.

They would live as they wish, with the one they love, and experience the benefits and acceptance

into society. In turn, less stress would equal longer, healthier lives.

Now for the cliché statement continuously heard from the oppositional parties of SSM.

Same-sex marriage will ruin traditional marriage. Divorce is already rampant; in what way could

SSM harm what is already doomed? In America, one in every two marriage will end in divorce.

By positive influence from same-sex marriages, heterosexual couples would begin to work on

their own marriages. Another argument is that of population control. By allowing homosexuals

to marry, we are cutting our chances for our society’s survival. Let us be realistic. Do we test

women to see if she is barren before allowing marriage? What about those couples who do not

plan to have children at all? This point has no way of standing. I understand the concept that two
 Burgett 7

individuals of the same-sex cannot reproduce, but if they are not going to be having their own

children anyways, there is no evidence this will affect the population any greater.

The idea that homosexual relationships are based strictly on physical attraction is

common. Some believe this attraction will carry over into SSM. Kolasinski states, by

“redefining” marriage, sexual love will become the main criteria. Homosexual couples form their

relationships the same way a heterosexual couples. Through hard work and commitment to each

other, they have committed relationships, therefore why should they not be bound by law and

marriage? Struggles encompass any relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Legalizing SSM does not change the criteria for a successful marriage; they will remain founded

on commitment, devotion, and honesty.

Same-sex marriage, five states allow it, forty-five left to legalize. The struggle to legalize

SSM will continue, but with the facts presented, we are guaranteed legalization across all fifty

states. The economy will strengthen, individuals of society will benefit, and our culture will be

enriched. What direction do you want this country to take? Legalization of interracial marriage, a

woman’s right to vote, and non-segregated schools have all been milestones. By denying the

same rights to same-sex couples, you are only crippling the direction America is headed.
 Burgett 8

Works Cited
Cline, Austin. About.Com. 25 March 2010. 18 February 2010
<http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/p/ProGayMarriage.htm>.
Head, Tom. "Civil Liberties." 1 6 2006. About.com. 18 2 2010
<http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/a/marriageamend_5.htm>.
Kolasinski, Adam. "The Secular Case Against Marriage." 17 February 2004. Free Republic. 19
February 2010 <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts>.
Kostigen, Thomas. "Gay Marriage can." 8 May 2009. Market Watch. 18 February 2010
<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gay-marriage-can-help-economy>.
Miller, Lisa. "Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy." 6 December 2008. Newsweek. 19 February 2010
<http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653>.
Olson, Theodore B. "Why same-sex marriage is an American value." 9 January 2010.
Newsweek. 19 February 2010 <http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957>.
Perry, Kathryn. 27 March 2009. The Christian Science Monitor. 18 February 2010
<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/0527/p02s07-ussc.html>.
Religious Tolerance. Religious Tolerance. 15 January 2006. 19 February 2010
<http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm>.
Schulman, Same. "The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage." 1 June 2009. The Weekly Standard.
3 March
2010<http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.
asp>.
Thompson, Eddie. The Argment Against Gay marriages. 18 February 2004. 18 February 2010
<http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=13199>.