The Debate: Redefining Marriage

Should Same-Sex Couples be Denied a Fundamental Right?

For several decades, beginning in the late 1960’s, same-sex marriage has been a debatable social issue in the United States. Although public opinion on the issue has evolved in recent years, the nation is still divided on the rights of gay couples to marry. Many fear that legalizing same-sex marriage nationally will not only greatly weaken the institution of marriage and negatively impact raising children, but it will also conflict with people’s religious freedoms. In their “Memo to Supreme Court: State Marriage Laws Are Constitutional,” Gene Schaerr and Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D argue that the states should have the constitutional authority to define marriage based on certain universal truths. These truths are believed to be: men and women are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father. However, these are not the fundamental aspects of marriage.

Before it can be determined by the states if marriage can be based on these truths stated, we must reexamine the foundation of these truths. As of now, states are now beginning to legalize and recognize same-sex marriage and have provided the same benefits that are afford to heterosexual couples.

As of today, 37 states, including Delaware and Pennsylvania, have legalized same-sex marriage and 13 states still have bans regulating the union of same-sex couples. The number of states that have legalized same-sex marriage has greatly increased in the past decade where in 2005, Massachusetts was the only state without bans. Throughout time, the views on same-sex marriage amongst individuals in America have changed overtime. The General Social Survey (GSS) surveyed Americans at different points in time and asked Americans to agree or disagree with the statement: “Homosexuals should have the right to marry one another.” In 1988, only 11 percent agreed to the statement, whereas in 2008, the number of people who agreed to the statement had more than tripled to 38 percent.

Whether it is believed same-sex marriage should be recognized as a right, the issue significantly impacts not only myself, but also society as a whole. Today, citizens are more in favor of equal rights for homosexuals than they were in past decades. Many citizens of the United States who believe and are in favor of gay rights, still oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. Many agree that gays and lesbians should have the same individual rights when it comes to getting a job, housing, government benefits and equal protection under the law but oppose same-sex unions. This is because of the fear of change that many in society posses. Citizens have been use to the way things are, and see no reason to change something that has been constant for years. Just because something has stayed constant for many years does not necessarily make it right.

This can be seen with discrimination interracial couples faced since the late 1960’s as well. Years ago, interracial couples faced discrimination and their marriages were considered unlawful. Same-sex couples are now faced with many of the same challenges interracial couples dealt with. As a result of discrimination against same-sex couples, human rights shared by others in society are being denied to them. As time passed, those who initially opposed interracial marriages are now more tolerant and willing to accept those who marry outside of their race. Over time, citizens will also become more tolerant and accepting of same-sex marriages. An important reason why same-sex marriage will become more accepting over time is because of the generation gap.

Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University, Byron Johnson, believes senior citizens and millennials views on same-sex marriage drastically differ because of the time each group grew up in. The younger generation in America is more likely to approve same-sex marriage over the elderly because they have been exposed to this issue throughout their childhood and adolescence. A survey done by Public Religion Research Institute shows 62 percent of individuals ages 18–29 favor allowing same-sex marriage, whereas only 13 percent of individuals over 65 approved same-sex marriage. Johnson argues that homosexuality has become more prevalent in young adults’ everyday lives because it is seen in all forms of the media and school settings than it ever has before.

In Schaerr and Anderson’s Memo, they address who should define marriage and what the definition of marriage is. In order to do this, the Supreme Court must come to an agreement as to what the definition of marriage is or should be. The Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth circuits have recently ruled in the past year that the states and their people lack the ability under the federal Constitution to define marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. In opposition to this ruling, the Sixth circuit has ruled to give the states’ people the right to choose the traditional man-woman definition of marriage. With the drastically different rulings across the nation, the dilemma rises as to whether the states and their people should define what marriage is or if it should be left up to the Judges to decide on a national level. With that being said, Schaerr and Anderson examines the different court cases being heard by the Supreme Court on this issue while giving influence as to what they think the definition of marriage truly is. As said earlier, Schaerr and Anderson state marriage is based on the truth that men and women are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father. Although this is the mindset and vision society has had for years, these aspects of what marriage is based on have no evidence of being the only correct answer or of being completely true.

Argument #1

Redefining Marriage

According to the two authors, marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary. The memo states that the traditional definition of marriage goes back thousands of years and spans almost every society in history. “Ancient thinkers as well as the political society in Greece and Rome, without being influenced by Judeo–Christian teaching, affirmed that marriage is a male–female union even as they embraced same-sex sexual relations.” Same-sex marriage cannot be considered under the due process clause because it has not been deeply rooted in the history of the United States and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” such that “neither liberty or justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” Marriage has always been understood as between a man and woman whenever recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right.

Courtesy 2009–2015 A View from the Right

Although same-sex couples may not be anatomically different, they can still complete each other by fulfilling their emotional, mental and physical needs. In the article, “A Right to Marry? Same-sex Marriage and Constitutional Law” written by Martha Nussbaum, she explains that love and consistency are major aspects of marriage. A marriage does not have to consist of a man and a woman in order for there to be love and for two people to be committed to each other. Other distinct aspects that marriages have, but do not have to be seen in all marriages stated in the article are sexual relations, friendship and companionship, love, conversation, procreation and child-rearing, and mutual responsibility. Nussbaum believes marriages can exist without each of these. A study conducted by the Open University in United Kingdom found that same sex couples are more likely to be happy with their relationships than heterosexual couples. “Non-heterosexual participants report higher scores than heterosexual participants on the three measures of relationship quality, relationship with partner, relationship maintenance and one of the two happiness measures, happiness with their relationship/partner”. Five thousand homosexual and heterosexual individuals were surveyed and it was found that non-heterosexual couples with and without children were more satisfied with their relationship than heterosexual couples with and without children. Non-heterosexual participants are more positive about and happier with the quality of their relationship, relationship with their partner and their relationship maintenance than heterosexual participants.

Argument #2

Is Marriage Based on Procreation?

According to the article, marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman. The memo states that marriage is about attaching a man and women together as husband and wife in order to become a father and mother to any children they produce. When a child is born, the mother is the first person closest to the infant, followed by the father. Schaerr and Anderson both believe marriage is what keeps a man committed and connected to not only his wife but the children produced by the two. The Sixth circuit concluded, “[b]y creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g., with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the States create an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring.” The combination of state-sanctioned status and benefits also gives couples incentives to bear offspring. These incentives help reinforce child-centered expectations that form part of the social institution of marriage.

If marriage was based on procreation, infertile couples and couples not willing to bear children would be prohibited from marriage under this theory. Sterile men and infertile women are similar to same-sex couples because they are both incapable of reproducing. Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, Gerard V. Bradley, dissects this problem in the article, “Marriage Law: The ‘Infertility Objection’’. He States that this point has been a topic of discussion since 1971 in the Baker v. Nelson case where homosexual petitioners argued “that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate.” The Supreme Court stated that the case did not even present a substantial federal question a year later. Last summer on June 25, 2014, a panel majority of the Tenth Circuit wrote: “The elderly, those medically unable to conceive, and those who exercise their fundamental right not to have biological children are free to marry . . . apparently without breaking the ‘conceptual link’ [identified by the state] between marriage and procreation.” Why is it that heterosexual marriages who cannot bear children is legal when same-sex marriages who also cannot bear children is not legal in all states? If the only difference is that the one type of union is opposite-sex and the other same-sex, then that factor does not justify a difference in treatment.

Argument #3

Same-Sex Couples and Adoption

Schaerr and Anderson argue that marriage is also based on the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father. It is believed by the two authors that marriage is a fundamental role in society that keeps men and women committed “permanently and exclusively” to one another and to take full responsibility for their offspring. Without a father present, children are more likely to commit crimes, live in poverty and go to jail. States’ decision to limit marital status to only a man and woman reminds society how important a biological connection is between a man, woman, and their offsprings. This connection will be “diluted and destroyed” if the definition of marriage is redefined.

It is readily acceptable for infertile couples to adopt a child and raise it as their own. Same-sex couples should be and are capable of adopting and raising children as well. According to the 2000 US Census, 65,000 children lived and were raised by same-sex couples and by 2012, the numbers nearly doubled to 110,000 children being raised by gay couples. As of now, there are 16 states that allow same-sex adoption. These states range from Arkansas, California, Connecticut, D.C., Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York. Other states allow second parent adoption by law where one person adopts the child of his/her partner. Some states include Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas. The most restrictive state where same-sex adoption is prohibited is Mississippi.

In a study conducted by researchers at University of Melbourne in Australia, which shows children of same-sex parents have better levels of health and wellbeing than their peers from traditional heterosexual parents. University of Melbourne researchers surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children on their physical health and social wellbeing. Lead researcher Doctor Simon Crouch said children raised by same-sex couples scored an average of 6 per cent higher than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion. Doctor Simon Crouch states, “That’s really a measure that looks at how well families get along, and it seems that same-sex-parent families and the children in them are getting along well, which has positive impacts on child health.”

As the United States was formed under the basis of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, same-sex marriages are encouraged under the idea of happiness. The two people who form the union agree upon fulfilling their emotional, mental, and physical needs which ultimately fosters a long lasting marriage. In addition, the biological fact that reproduction depends on men and women, as mentioned by Schaerr and Anderson, is irrelevant if considering a heterosexual marriage without children. Rather this inconsistency proves that marriage is not connected with procreation. Lastly, with the differences in test scores between children in heterosexual households to those in homosexual households, there is more positive developments of children of homosexuals. The bases presented by Schaerr and Anderson fail to uphold when closely examined. The legality of same-sex marriages has long been debated, and it is time it comes to an end. If the United States truly promotes happiness, what more does it take to redefine marriage?