Same-sex marriage has been a very hot topic since the election made it prominent. As a society, we’ve been asked to question our definition of legal marriage. As of right now, despite what anyone thinks it should be, legal marriage is a state-defined contract between a man and a woman.
We all have our own personal definitions of marriage. As someone who is married, I see it as a strong commitment to a lifelong, hopefully loving relationship between a man and a woman. Although I sympathize with gay and lesbian couples’ desire to make a similar commitment to prove their love and loyalty to one another, such a commitment simply does not come under our current institution of marriage.
If a same-sex couple wants only to have a ceremony for sentimental reason, many churches today will perform a ceremonial marriage for these purposes. However, it is inconsiderate of them to try and change the definition of legal marriage. The argument about our country’s definition of marriage is not about giving rights to couples in love, it is about preservation of a cultural tradition that holds a lot of meaning for many people in our country. Changing this definition would affect every person in our country. Therefore, each person’s opinion deserves equal weight in the decision.
All of us who grew up in the United States have grown up with the knowledge of what marriage means in our country. Our country works so hard to uphold the cultural traditions of everyone. Just because one group of people in our country no longer value a tradition in its current state does not mean they should disregard the value it holds for others and attempt to change the tradition to fit their new ideas.
It is obvious from statistics around the country that a large portion of Americans feel strongly about the current definition of marriage and oppose changing it. We should respect this. If same-sex couples desire to make a commitment, they should work on creating a new legal institution that carries with it similar benefits and responsibilities but is intended to apply to the legal union of same-sex couples from the beginning. Not only could we create an institution with fewer problems and loopholes that secure the rights of same-sex couples, but such an institution would not impose upon the many people who feel so strongly about the current definition of marriage in our country. The current institution of marriage was never meant to include same-sex couples and would require significant changes to include such unions. With so many people personally connected to the current marriage institution, it is really not worth offending them, nor is it really necessary. A new institution of legal same-sex unions, with the rights and responsibilities that same-sex couples cannot easily obtain today, would be an institution for them to be proud of.
Although you may disagree that changing the current legal definition of marriage should bother anybody, many people in our country have strong feelings against including same-sex unions under the definition of marriage. These feelings are not going to change. Because these feelings come from other fellow U.S. citizens, we need to realize that they are just as valid. Everyone in this country has opinions that matter, even if we disagree with them. To solve this disagreement successfully, we need to respect the feelings of people on both sides.
Amanda Vogelzang ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in classical humanities.