According to Rabbi Aryeh Pamensky, the philosophical definition of marriage is “a lifetime commitment to constantly provide emotional intimacy to your spouse, thereby uncovering your true self and, ultimately, your unique purpose for being created.” If two people are ready to make such an intimate commitment with each other, how can others have the authority to tell them that they can’t because their love is “unnatural” or “immoral?” Homosexuals should be able to marry their partners just as heterosexuals can, because their love is just as valid as anyone else’s.
The same-sex marriage debate raises much controversy today. Some people wonder what same-sex marriage would mean for them, and they wonder if it is even worth fighting for. Many people believe that the only reason gays want to marry is to obtain the rights and benefits that married couples receive. But why don’t people raise these questions and suspicions about heterosexual marriage? If marriage is no more than a purely legal institution, then it is not marriage itself that matters, but only its constituent rights and benefits. And people do not consider the fact that the legal benefits of marriage can already be obtained through wills, private contracts, and power-of-attorney agreements. Marriage is more than just a cluster of legal rights and benefits. The legal aspects of marriage are important, but marriage also has an enormous effect on the way a couple is viewed by society. Couples don’t get married for strictly legal purposes, but they also want others to know that they have a serious commitment and an intimate relationship.
Many people feel that same-sex marriage will undermine the institution of marriage. According to a 1999 survey of gay couples in Massachusetts, a sociologist found that only 10 percent of gay men and 32 percent of gay women felt that a committed relationship included sexual exclusivity. In 1994, a University of Chicago sociologist did a study on American sexual behavior. He found that 65 to 85 percent of married men, and 80 percent of married women, had no sex partners other than their spouse while married. But should the married men and women who haven’t cheated on their spouse suffer for the mistakes of those who have? It would be unfair to condemn every heterosexual couple for the mistakes of a just few. So why do people wish to punish all same-sex couples for the thoughts and opinions of only certain same-sex couples?
Another reason people condemn same-sex marriage is the fact that gays are unable to produce children. Does this mean that infertile couples should not be allowed to marry either? Having children is not a prerequisite to getting married. In fact, many couples who get married don’t want children, but they are still permitted to marry. And many gay couples do want to raise children by adoption or artificial insemination. But many people feel that gay couples will obviously raise gay children, much like heterosexual couples only raise heterosexual children. Some people feel that children cannot succeed without a male and a female role model at home. Does this mean that single parents should be forbidden to raise children? As long as a child is loved, cared for, properly raised, and properly disciplined, they will be successful in life.
Same-sex marriage raises another argument: civil unions and domestic partnerships. Same-sex marriage, by definition, is the legal marriage between people of the same sex. A civil union is almost like a marriage, but the rights of marriage are only recognized in the state where the couple resides. Laws and terminology for domestic partnership vary among states, cities, and counties. Any rights are recognized only on the state or local level. The most significant difference between marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections. According to the federal government's General Accounting Office, more than 1,100 rights and benefits are granted to citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans’ benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law. Because civil unions and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. So essentially, certain states are trying to create a somewhat “separate but equal” marriage for homosexuals. If “separate but equal” laws are unconstitutional in regards to segregation of blacks and whites, why are “separate but equal” laws acceptable for gays who wish to marry?
I sympathize with same-sex couples who wish to marry because in my eyes, love is love, and I don’t think that anyone should be able to call a certain type of love “wrong” or “unnatural.” I feel that gays should be allowed to marry and express their love in the same way that heterosexuals can. I also believe that gays and heterosexuals should unite in the fight for same-sex marriage, because together, I feel that we can all make a difference. If whites and blacks could unite to eliminate segregation, why can’t gays and heterosexuals come together to fight for a change?
The ban on same-sex marriage is opposed by some because it seems to install homosexual relations as equal in value to heterosexual ones. Technically, it does no such thing. The state allows convicted wife-murderers, child-abusers, and rapists to marry, even while in jail; it is not expressing any sort of approval of these relationships. I feel that once we understand what marriage truly is, we can see why it is worth fighting for. Same-sex marriage would not force anyone to approve of same-sex relationships. It would, however, allow those who are involved in same-sex relationships to make others aware of the fact that they, just like heterosexual couples, take their relationship seriously. And without the ability to marry, homosexuals remain excluded from participating in one of the basic institutions of society. Separate but equal was unconstitutional when segregating blacks and whites, and it is just as unconstitutional when separating heterosexuals and gays.
