OPINION & EDITORIAL
A deniable privilege?
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jamie Shookman:
- State must protect even worst felons (November 29, 2004)
- Osama threat ineffective (November 5, 2004)
- Limiting abortions to rape not realistic (October 22, 2004)
- Citizens set bad example (October 5, 2004)
- Sport weekends underrated (September 20, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Vote "No" on marriage ban (November 6, 2006)
- Letters to the Editor, 2/10/04 (February 10, 2004)
- Gay-marriage ban bad for Wisconsin (December 2, 2005)
- States should give same-sex couples same rights as all (September 22, 2005)
- Gay-marriage amendment wrong course for Wisconsin (January 17, 2005)
by Jamie Shookman
Monday, February 9, 2004
Wisconsin Republicans proposed an amendment to the state constitution last week that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The proposal has taken the relatively new legal issue to the forefront of local debate.
What is the real issue at hand? Why do so many people object to same-sex marriages?
There is certainly a stigma attached to such marriages, much like the stigma once attached to interracial marriages. The ban on interracial marriages was not lifted in all states until 1967, in part due to the adverse stigma attached. It’s debatable that society will ever change its views on gay marriages.
But this is irrelevant, as what society views as intolerable can still be lawful and just. Proponents of the amendment claim the sanctity of marriage must be preserved. Opponents contend that such a distinction is unconstitutionally discriminatory. But has marriage ever been sanctified, and is the right to marriage a guaranteed American civil right?
Marriage has served many purposes throughout history, aside from joining true love. Henry V married into French royalty in an attempt to unite England and France. Aristocratic families in colonial America arranged marriages only when each side of the union could bear its financial burden.
Marriages in our human and national history have bound true love and solidified political and social agreements. The sanctity is and always has been dictated by the participants, not the contract itself. Nothing is different today. The marriages resulting from reality shows and Vegas are anything but sacred, yet nothing about marriage’s legality prevents this. Marriage is as holy as two people decide to make it, and the induction of gay marriages would not threaten that.
But what right or amendment gives American citizens the right to join together in marriage? There certainly are undeniable rights applicable to every citizen, the most basic being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This includes the right to love whom one chooses. This includes the right to live with whom one chooses. This includes the right to choose whatever path it is in life that brings happiness, be it through a heterosexual or homosexual relationship.
Is marriage a privilege or a right? If marriage is a declaration and union of true love, then it undoubtedly is a right. But this isn’t the case. The state does not decide if two people are in love. The state does not decide the sanctity of a given marriage. The state merely offers a legal title of marriage.
Therefore, since “marriage” refers to a legal contract afforded by many state constitutions, it is a privilege. And the government is not restricted from giving privileges to certain groups of citizens as long as these privileges serve the social welfare of the state.
Senior citizens receive a variety of discounts and benefits that younger citizens do not enjoy. Is this discriminatory? No. These benefits are given because senior citizens are not as capable of attaining their financial stability as younger, able-bodied adults. Receiving tax, health, and other benefits is a privilege offered to two people joining together to start a family.
Granted, not all married couples choose this path. But for the many couples that do embark on the financially and emotionally draining journey, it is available.
And these tax and health benefits are privileges reserved for a man and woman to support a family should they choose to start one. Gay couples have the freedom to live their lives as they choose. Yet they do not have the right to start a family and bring children into this lifestyle.
The fact remains that some research shows that children are adversely affected by gay parents and some does not. Is our society willing to subject its children to a sociological experiment in hopes that the majority of them will turn out unaffected? Of course not. And this is why gay couples aren’t offered the same incentives that traditional couples receive upon marriage. Certainly many children are brought up in less-than-ideal situations, but that doesn’t mean we throw in the towel and let a child’s fate fall into just anybody’s hands.
The only solution is offering gay couples the right to a civil union with different contractual terms, such as one that bans the right to raise a child. It could be called a “civil union” instead of marriage.
Any realist knows that a civil union will never constitute an equal right to proponents of gay marriages. Gay couples are guaranteed the rights to love and live together. Marriages, on the other hand, are privileges intended for the social welfare of the state. The right to nurture a family is reserved solely for a man and a woman.
Jamie Shookman (jlshookman@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science and English.
