Gay Marriages

Kelsey Webb
June 22, 2007

Each day, “hot button issues” find a place in the news, in political meetings, in research facilities, and in our every day lives. Whether they concern the environment or test some standard already set by a society, these issues are paid attention to. Gay marriage has found its place on the table of issues. Opponents say that marriage is between a man and a woman period. Supporters say that it should not matter. Despite arguments from either side, our world is becoming less and less of a world filled with love. So why not let two people that love each other become legally married, regardless of sex?
Thomas B. Stoddard agrees that gay marriages should be legal. Besides the obvious argument that it shouldn’t matter if two people of the same sex get married as long as they love each other, Stoddard discusses the benefits of marriage that gays would miss out on. “Marriage is not just a symbolic state. It can be the key to survival, emotional and financial. Marriage triggers a universe of rights, privileges, and presumptions” (Stoddard 551). Married couples share estate rights, insurance, pension programs, and tax advantages. These are benefits that should not be denied on the basis of sexuality. Stoddard also mentions a story of a lesbian couple that suffered from marital discrimination. Thompson and Kowalski fit the definition of a married couple but without the legal status. Thompson tried to care for Kowalski after a car accident but was denied guardianship and Kowalski was moved to a nursing home 300 miles away from Thompson. This lack of legal marriage license caused the couple anguish that no married couple would ever have to go through with a case like this one.
Sadly, there are two sides to every story. Lisa Schiffren takes the opposing view in an essay titled, “Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron.” Schiffren makes argument after argument opposing homosexual matrimony but each point has a loophole. She references “our culture’s understanding of the institution [of marriage]” (Schiffren 554). However she forgets to note that “our culture’s understanding” changes, and it does quite frequently. There was a time when blacks were not allowed to marry whites. Thankfully, this ‘understanding’ changed. Now we see that an idea such as discriminating against racial marriage is ridiculous. Schiffren states that the purpose of marriage is to procreate but if this was the case, infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Women over the age of 35 would not be allowed to marry, due to the fact that most birth defects increase if the mother is over 35. Homosexuals are just as qualified to “raise healthy children” and “nurture children” as heterosexuals. Schiffren also talks about how the “tie that really binds for life is shared responsibility for the children...” and “What will keep gay marriages together when individuals tire of each other?” (Schiffren 554). However, this is not a valid argument. What keeps heterosexual marriages together when individuals tire of each other? They do share responsibility for the children but yet still find ways to get divorced.
Basically, it comes down to the fact that discrimination is illegal. Society is beginning to realize that homosexuals must be not necessarily accepted but tolerated. You cannot physically harm or abuse gays and get away with it. Therefore, you should not be able to determine the destiny of a gay couple. All humans have rights and the government should not deprive homosexual humans of their marital rights.