Gay marriage: What is the purpose of marriage?

The Gay marriage debate is often framed in view of two different views on the purpose of marriage. One side says that the most important function of marriage is procreation, the creation of children between a man and a woman. Another side says that marriage is a public declaration of a spiritual, emotional bond between two people. I believe that marriage is a right that should not be based on the ability to create children, but on the simple promise between two people to love each other until death. My dad is a Lutheran pastor who has worked as a chaplain at major hospitals in Chicago and Yankton. When a person is admitted into intensive care, only immediate family is allowed access. My dad often counseled couples, both gay and lesbian, who had been committed to each other for decades but were separated at the time of death. It is a human need to say goodbye to a loved one as they die, but since in the eyes of the law they were not married-they were barred from the room. My dad began his chaplaincy against the concept of gay marriage, but after seeing the heartbreak over and over again he now supports equal marriage rights for all people regardless of sex.

The primary argument for gay marriage is that the institution of marriage is a human right. Thomas Stoddard quotes the 1967 supreme court ruling that " 'marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man' (and, presumably, of women as well). The freedom to marry, said the court, is 'essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness' " (551). In other words, marriage is a human right protected by the United States Constitution. Lisa Schiffren disagrees saying, "Marriage is essentially a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring" (554). Schiffren's narrow definition excludes many heterosexual couples. In Schiffren's world an infertile woman would have no need for marriage. Marriage would be pointless for any man with a vasectomy. Any senior citizens who fall in love shouldn't bother with marriage since they are past reproductive age. Today no person gets married for the sole purpose of bearing children. People get married for love. Love is blind. Love knows no boundaries. Love joins two people regardless of age, race, class or sex.

The secondary argument is about the legal and social benefits of marriage. Our society views a married couple as family, whereas two people living under one roof are simply roommates. The most heart breaking example of our society's discrimination is in the ICU. Stoddard relates the story of Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski (551) who were separated by the courts after a drunk driver struck Ms Kowalski. Their situation is unique only in that it was remedied in the courts. Many couples have no legal alternative when death strikes quickly. Marriage would legitimize the union and allow the sick, injured and dying person comfort from their spouse. Schiffren does not address this issue in her essay. She does mention that the government benefits "exist to help couples raise children" (555), but does not consider the adopted children of homosexual couples. In fact, if the purpose of marriage is to raise children, then the legalization of homosexual marriage would provide thousands of loving homes for all the unwanted children of heterosexual couples in foster care.

In the end, marriage is a human right protected by the constitution for all Americans. The legalization of homosexual marriage would allow loving and committed couples, regardless of sex or orientation, the social and political rights that heterosexual couples now enjoy.

Suzannah Bryan