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 ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring
in political science and English.