Because of changing events I updated this article on Aug 3 2008.

Abstract 

      Over the years homosexuals have suffered through discrimination hatred. Due to their sexual orientation jobs were lost, homes were vandalized, family members were ridiculed, and property was frequently destroyed. The homosexual movement is now making their stand. The demand, similar to the civil rights and feminist movements, is for equal rights. The gay movement has overturned the notion that homosexuality is a “disorder”, or a “pathological” problem to be solved. The movement has been successful in overturning state Sodomy laws by way of the Supreme Court. Homosexuals have proven that they are here to stay. The next step in the gay rights movement is to legally sanction gay marriage. This paper discusses whether or not heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are equal. This paper defines natural rights. This paper finds that, while there are strong similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, believing that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions and that opposition to gay marriage is equal to the discrimination of race is a common misconception.  Therefore, it is necessary to deliberate the equality of homosexual and heterosexual relationships and the potential consequences of legalizing gay marriage.

Introduction

 The gay marriage debate rages on the airwaves and in the court rooms. Over the years advocates of gay marriage have created parallel arguments between gay rights movement and civil rights movements of the past. They fight on the premise of equal rights, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. For example, favorite films such as Remember the Titans, a movie picture about American football and racism, inserts a malapropos clip of a young quarterback kissing one of his unsuspecting teammates in the locker room, creating an underlying parallel between racism of the 1960s and homosexuals in the late 90’s (2000, Remember the Titans). The phrase “Gay is Good,” paraphrasing popular the African American motto “Black is Beautiful,” was coined by Frank Kameny after being dismissed from his army post in the 1950’s for being homosexual (Stewart, 2003, p. 83). Even a simple search on Google for the keyword “gay rights” will draw an astonishing 20,200,000 results; that is only 2,000,000 less than its infamous counterpart and mentor “civil rights”. While there are strong similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, the common misconception is in believing that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions and that opposition to gay marriage is equal to the discrimination of race.  Therefore, it is necessary to deliberate the equality of homosexual and heterosexual relationships and the potential consequences of legalizing gay marriage.

A History of Discrimination

      While the intention of this paper is not to point out the acute differences between skin color and the choice of sexual preference, some parallels between gay discrimination and racism are valid. It is without question that homosexuals have been and are currently experiencing discrimination due to choice of sexual orientation.

      Previous to the 1970’s, homosexuals often lived in outright fear. The United States (and most of the world) was a dangerous place for homosexuals to live.  Homosexuals would meet secretly in unmarked bars, entering through the back to avoid being seen from the street. Many feared not only that they might be beaten or killed, but that they may loose all civil privileges while confined in prison (Stewart, 2003, p. 50).

      The predatory enemy of homosexuals could be generally stereotyped as young white homophile males, between the ages of 15 and 25.  When the sexual orientation of a homosexual was discovered, they would often be cornered in an ally and then beaten in vicious hate crimes. Jobs were lost, homes were vandalized, family members were ridiculed, and property was frequently destroyed (Stewart, 2003, p. 51).

      Not only did gays and lesbians face harassment and physical abuse simply because of their sexual orientation, but the laws of the land were also steeply etched against homosexuality (Turner, 2003, p. 6). Sodomy laws, overruled by the Supreme Court, still exist today in most states. During the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, gay bars and meeting places were ransacked by police authorities. Those inside would be filed into the street and then striped to “discover” sexual orientation by what type of underwear they were wearing.  If a woman was wearing boxers, she could be thrown in prison (Stewart, 2003, p. 82).

      Just as the word “nigger” was once used rampantly in a derogatory fashion, the word “gay” is also used in a demeaning way. Taking a stroll through a school playground, you will now commonly hear the words, “that’s gay!” and “your gay”, or perhaps a hundred other slang combinations of the word.

      It was the 1970s before the homosexual movement began to gain ground. A portion of their success can be attributed to the likes of Kinsley, the sexual revolutionist, and the women’s rights movements. In 1973, gay liberation leaders, many of whom were prominent clinical psychologists and psychiatrists, convinced the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their books as a “disorder”, or a “pathological” problem to be solved. The fact that it is now widely accepted that homosexuality is not a form of mental illness or health disorder, is prominent evidence that America’s perception of homosexuality has changed. Homosexuals have formed associations and powerful organizations to openly declare their “gay pride” (Stewart, 2003, p. 50). Wealthy homosexuals have increased funding on scientific research with the intended purpose of proving that homosexuality is healthy and normal, by revealing the complexities of sexual orientation.

      Homosexuals have been piercing and effective in their pursuit of gay rights. They are generally well-educated and smart in their approaches to get what they want and, for the most part, they are achieving their goals. Yet, even with all of their victories, they still face the challenge of convincing America that they have a right to legally marry (Ferguson, 2006).

Two Reasons Gays Want Marriage Rights

The motive to win the unique battlefront of marriage is two fold. First, are the legal benefits.  Homosexual couples desire to have the same legal rights guaranteed by the union of a legal marriage license. Currently, no matter how many years a couple has been living together, their rights are limited to that of a best friend. If one of the individuals becomes incapacitated, there is no right for the other partner to make medical or financial decisions. When life-threatening or terminal illnesses arise they will be denied access to the intensive care unit in which the partner is being held. Also, just as in any other unmarried relationship, there is no automatic access to inheritance of the partner’s property. In the case of separation or breakup, they are not entitled to divorce protections (Turner, 2002).

Second, if the state legalizes gay marriage, then suddenly marriage changes from a protected belief of a small minority, to the false impression that the state (which is an extension of the people) believes that it is morally acceptable to practice homosexuality.

Why not gay marriage?

Recently Scott Bidstrup, a free lance writer and popular gay rights blogger (his blog receives over 150,000 visitors per month), wrote and published an essay titled “Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives”. He opens his essay with this question:Recently Scott Bidstrup, a free lance writer and popular gay rights blogger (his blog receives over 150,000 visitors per month), wrote and published an essay titled “Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives”. He opens his essay with this question:

“Ask just about anyone. They’ll all tell you they’re in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Just name the situation, and ask. They’ll all say, yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accommodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etcetera, etcetera

“Then you get to gay marriage.

“And that’s when all this talk of equality stops dead cold.

“More than half of all people in the United States oppose gay marriage, even though three fourths are otherwise supportive of gay rights. This means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue.

“Why all the passion?” (Bidstup, 2006) 

      The answer is simple. As individuals, law abiding homosexuals should be entitled to every inalienable right held by any heterosexual; but as couples, gay relationships no longer hold an equal stance to the synergy of a heterosexual relationship. The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family.

Marriage and Procreation

      Patrick Henry, one of the founders of the United States of America, wisely said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past” (Henry). The ceremonial covenant of marriage historically precedes government involvement. Marriage ceremonies have always been religious in nature, Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or Pagan alike. There have always been sexual or physical relationships to which marriage has no part. Though romantic love is often a desirable part of marriage, marriage is not, and never has been at its roots, about romantic love. Marriage at its core is about commitment and lifelong love, but most importantly posterity.

      The primary thrust of the gay agenda is to redefine marriage as simply commitment, honesty, affection, and warmth between two loving individuals. If so then it simply becomes an equal protection issue and the gay couple argues they are being discriminated against for a relationship they claim holds equal commitment and value to the heterosexual relationship. This argument breaks down because it ignores posterity and procreation. Children, in the eyes of history and the eyes of the state, are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and

rearing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place. The state is not seen registering and giving state benefits to boyfriends and girlfriends or to cohabiting couples. The state does, however, afford special benefits to single parents. In both marriage and parenthood, the central interest of the state is the same—children. Now the homosexual community may argue that they can raise children as well, or perhaps, better than the next heterosexual couple. They hold up “poster child” examples of gay couples in supposed happy and financially-secure situations raising children.

      The point, both legally and historically, the homosexual family can only exist as a product of government policy and modern science, and a dependence on the natural family. Children, the primary interest of the state, come to gay families only by means of legal adoption (a function of the law and state) and by artificial insemination, or some other form of surrogate parentage combined with adoption. These means of formulating the gay family are only realized through science and the law. It is very clear that there is no natural procreative ability between homosexual partners. The procreative ability between heterosexual couples is, by contrast, perfectly natural, and dates back to the start of recorded history. The natural family would continue whether the government or science became involved or not. Thus, we see that a homosexual relationship is not naturally equal to a heterosexual relationship.

      The opening statement of the Declaration of Independence proclaims that people are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and among these are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Legal Information Institute, 2006). The great enlightenment thinker, John Locke, called this natural law. He believed that natural law was not a creation or product of the state, but was to be protected by the state as these are the natural rights of all men inseparably connected to being human (Locke). Accordingly, without need of a secular description, it is boldly inscribed in our courthouses, on our currency, and throughout our capitals. It is clearly written in the Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance, including its oration by the vast majority of the presidents of the United States, that we are endowed with these rights by God. Homosexuals may argue that they are in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, yet there is no logical means by which they are naturally in the pursuit of life. Indeed we may argue that the gay movement, by its very nature, is a movement in pursuit of death, its own extinction, for without the intervention of the state and modern science, homosexuality results in the termination of posterity. Thus, from the perspective of both science and state we can see that the union of man and women, with their resulting children compared to the homosexual union are polar opposites both in origin and fruit. Any argument to the contrary is hollow and irrational sophistry. The married union and the homosexual union should be treated unequally because they are unequal. What the homosexual cause is essentially arguing is that they should be given special preferences. They are debating for equal benefits where their relationships are unequal in importance to the future of society.

      Inasmuch as posterity is of sufficient importance to the future of the state, the government has always made efforts to encourage the creation of natural families. The bearing and upbringing of children is, by its own nature, economically inefficient in the rules of commerce. If someone has less children they have more time to produce and can consume more goods, more vacations, more cars, more toys, and more clothes with much less effort. Having a family does not have a economically quantifiable reward. Many place the argument that having children increases responsibility and denies individuals material comforts. This is true, and within the strict terms of money, it is more beneficial to not raise a family. The government has always understood this and has architected policy to counterbalance the natural disincentives to bringing children into life. They did this by getting into the marriage business and creating special tax break incentives, public education, inheritance laws, and other mechanisms to encourage the responsible upbringing of children. In other words, the upbringing of our future.

What about heterosexuals who are infertile?

      The posterity argument is constantly disregarded by homosexuals. Stating that marriage is only for heterosexuals because of the children is ignoring the couples who cannot or will have children, but it is acceptable for them to have a marriage?

      This dispute is partially valid. Many married heterosexuals choose not to have children, and others cannot because of medical problems or physical handicaps. But, as mentioned earlier, gays fought furiously to convince the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their books as a “disorder”, or medical problem (Stewart, 2003, p.50). The majority of the United States will now agree that homosexuality is not a medical problem or disorder (Fergusen, 2006) Even in perfect medical condition, a homosexual couple cannot procreate without the help of a third party (e.g. technology, infidelity, or government). The laws of nature will never allow for a man and man, nor a women and women to have children together. Therefore homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are inherently, and naturally, unequal. This is not to say that homosexuals should shunned because of their beliefs and tendencies. Nor does this fact infringe on their God given rights. The argument is that the two relationships are very different from one another and for that reason, they should be defined differently.

Conclusion

      The gay marriage movement is demanding the same perks and benefits and the same recognition as the natural family, even though they have no direct natural connection to the benefits that the natural family provides to the state. In effect what they are asking for is plainly benefits with no responsibility to shoulder the cost. On the whole, the gay community does not raise children; those that do are the exception and not the norm (Dailey, 2006). The gay lifestyle is an individualistic lifestyle and as previously illustrated, by its very nature does not work to create families. Soon there is a better understanding of President Bush’s concerned statement on marriage, “After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity” (Bush, 2005).

      The Consequences if Marriage is not Protected

      And so we have a real quandary and problem in that the positions on both sides of the argument, when distilled, can never be reconciled. Most of those against gay and lesbian marriage have more conservative morals and find at the seed of their thinking an unwavering belief in God. In short, they believe homosexuality is sin. If the homosexual marriage movement succeeds, there will be no place for this type of religious adherent in public life. Because homosexuals have erroneously framed this debate as it were a repetition of the civil rights movements, once the right is gained, there will be no middle ground. If little Johnny goes to school and tells his teacher during health class that his dad and mom told him that for a man to be with another man is a sin abhorrent before God, his parents will be labeled as intolerant and hateful bigots. Then the “open minded” officials of the system would be required by law to recognize and teach Jimmy that gay unions are normative and healthy as an alternative to traditional marriage. If the state recognizes gay marriage the secular responsibility of the government will be to socialize and shape the opinions in the minds of its citizens, particularly the children.

      When it comes to marriage, legally and logically there can be no compromise. This is in fact the very objective of the gay movement, to overturn years of “prejudice” just as the civil rights movement did 40 years ago. And yet this has nothing to do with civil rights. There was never a time in United States history when the blacks were withheld the right of marriage. This is about destroying a person’s notion of evil and then legally sanctioning it with the law.  It is about overturning all sense of right and wrong. A successful gay marriage movement could logically bring about, in time, the greatest period of religious discrimination in the history of our country. The costs to society of recognizing gay marriage as a right are frightening and incalculable. It will only bring about minimal and unwarranted benefits to only a fraction of the people in this country. In fact, one might argue that it will not ever benefit the gays, in that it will only perpetuate the culture of victimization and seek to undermine the power of constitutional law. Is America ready to pay the social and cultural price? Is America ready to see the expansion of benefits for a few rip at the fabric of freedom?

These references were set up for a paper I did in school, I would have inserted them into the article if I had been writing it for my blog.

References 
 

Bidstrup, S. (2006). Gay marriage: The arguments and the motives. Retrieved December 11, 2006, from http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Boaz Yakin. (2000). In Jerry Bruckheimer (Ed.), Remember the Titans, Walt Disney Pictures.

Bush G. (2005). Bush calls for ban on same-sex marriages. Retrieved on December 11, 2006, from http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.transcript /index.html

Dailey, T. PhD. (2006). Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk. Retrieved on December 10, 2006, from http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php

Ferguson, A. (2006). Gay marriage: An American and Feminist Dilemma. Hypatia, 22(1), 39-57.

Henry, P. (2002). Give Me Liberty or Give me Death. Retrieved on December 10, 2006, from http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

Legal Information Institute. Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on Dec 10, 2006, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Locke, J. (1990). Second Treatise of Government. NY: Hackett Publishing.

Stewart C. (2003). Gay and lesbian issues - A reference handbook. Santa Barbra, CA: ABC - CLIO, Inc.

Turner J. S. (2002). Families in America - A reference handbook. Santa Barbra, CA: ABC - CLIO, Inc.

Share This

Trackback URI | Comments RSS