For No Good Reason!

When it comes to allowing same-sex marriage, why are a majority of Americans so willing to openly discriminate against a group of its own citizens?

The list of reasons to ban same-sex marriages looks something like this: the rearing of children in the best possible environment; the opinion that marriage’s purpose is natural procreation; the fear that children raised in same-sex families will be gay or lesbian as a result; that homosexuality isn’t natural; keeping the traditional one man, one woman marriage; religious convictions; and finally, that allowing same-sex marriages will lead to polygamous marriages.

At first glance, these all appear to be good reasons to many people (and some governmental units) to continue discriminating against same-sex couples concerning civil marriage. However, when investigated, none of these arguments are supportable. In other words, the banning of same-sex marriage is done for no good reason. Not convinced? Read on!

To determine whether banning same-sex marriages actually accomplishes any of the goals or desires listed above, several factors need to be looked at. Are there scientific facts done by unbiased, qualified researchers to back up a claim? Is the stated goal a legitimate one for government? Are the groups affected by the ban appropriately included in it? Inclusiveness is a measure as to whether or not banning same sex civil marriages include all of the people who, by being banned, would allow the law to accomplish the intended goal. Does the ban include too many people (over-inclusive) or too few people (under-inclusive) to accomplish the ban’s goals? (Varnum v. Brien, 2009. p. 55)

It is a noble and desirable goal of government to want laws in place that make the raising of children the best it can be, of that there is no doubt. Many people who demand that same-sex marriage be banned claim that allowing it will harm children raised within these households. What do the organizations whose jobs it is to protect children have to say about it? Does the ban actually prevent groups of people who aren’t desirable as parents from having or raising children? Are some groups missed or other groups included who shouldn’t be?

In looking at the emotional and mental health of children from same-sex marriages, studies show teenagers develop normally with same-sex parents (Patterson, C., et al, 2004). The children of same-sex marriages date the same, learn the same, and have the same number of adjustment issues related to the transition to adulthood as do the teenagers of opposite sexed marriages (Patterson, C. et al, 2004). In one way, they tend to be healthier than those in opposite-sex marriages. They are more honest and healthier in terms of their own sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, bi-sexual, gay or lesbian.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America have all come to the same conclusion: gay and lesbian parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising children (Varnum v. Brien, 2009. p. 10). Ignoring the competent scientific research of these organizations would be required for our government to claim same-sex families aren’t healthy for kids. An ignorant government by default is an incompetent government and clearly not the goal of the ban, just the result of it.

Since the best objective professional and expert research has shown that children are just as healthy in same-sex marriages as they are in opposite-sex marriages, banning same-sex marriages out of care and concern for the health of the children isn’t legitimate.

Additionally, banning same-sex marriages based on the raising of children includes same-sex marriages in situations where the participants have no desire nor intent to raise children at all. The ban unfairly punishes same-sex couples who wish to remain childless (Varnum v. Brien, 2009. p. 55).

The ban does not prevent sex offenders, felons with a history of violence, pedophiles, and people with a history of multiple failed marriages nor other groups that would more than likely provide less than the best environment for raising children from getting married.

Clearly the failure to include all groups known to make bad parents as well as including groups known to make good parents and groups who never want to be parents at all, shows that bans against same-sex marriage are poorly written laws, ineffective at accomplishing their stated goal of insuring the best environment in which to raise children. It also shows that these bans are both under-inclusive and over inclusive by limited the target group to just same-sex couples.

This clearly illustrates the ban’s intent is not the stated goal, but rather it is to deny same-sex couples the benefits of a civil marriage freely available to the rest of society. In other words, the purpose of these laws is to discriminate, and that is no good reason.

There are those that maintain the purpose of marriage is to have children – more specifically, to naturally procreate (Sokolowski, R. 2004). If the intent of the law were to establish that the purpose of marriage was natural procreation, the ban would need to include all couples who wish to remain childless in order to accomplish the stated goal. It would need to include opposite-sexed couples who fail medical exams to prove they can procreate naturally before being issued a marriage license. After all, according to this argument, if you can’t procreate naturally, what is the point in getting married? It would need to include women who are too old to have children and men who have had vasectomies.

In the extreme (if not all ready there), the ban would need to make medical procedures aimed at the artificial means of getting pregnant illegal. Sperm banks and egg banks aren’t natural and would have no purpose if the government’s goal is to insure natural procreation as the means whereby a woman becomes pregnant. Same-sex marriage bans clearly fail to include all groups of people who lack the ability to procreate naturally or who wish not to procreate at all.

Clearly, bans on same-sex marriages completely fail to insure natural procreation. It is not clear that limiting procreation to natural means is in the best interest of the government and society if it also means outlawing artificial and thereby unnatural, means of procreation. Clearly, these bans are very under-inclusive when considering the attainment of the stated goal of natural procreation. They are so poorly written as to never be able to move American society even one inch closer to natural procreation. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that this is a valid governmental goal.

It is clearly shown that the ban’s intent is not the stated goal of insuring natural procreation via government regulation, but rather to deny same-sex couples the benefits of a civil marriage freely available to the rest of society. In other words, the purpose of these laws is to discriminate which, again, is no good reason.

Others proclaim the unfounded fear that children raised in such families with become same-sex oriented themselves, that the number of gay and lesbians in our society will increase. There is no research to support these fears. According to considerable recent evidence, sexual orientation may significantly be influenced by inborn hormonal factors which are genetic (Unknown, 2007) as well as by environmental post-birth factors. Additionally, it has to be admitted that the vast and overwhelming majority of gay people in our society come from opposite-sex marriages where natural procreation was practiced.

Having a sexual orientation other than heterosexual is not considered a mental illness (Unknown, 2007). It is very difficult to change a person’s sexual orientation and doing so can be harmful to the person (Varnum v. Brien, 2009. p. 10). Given that the vast majority of gay people come from opposite-sex marriages, not same-sex couples, and that sexual orientation may have biological or genetic factors, it seems doubtful that banning same-sex marriage will have any affect on children’s sexual orientation or that allowing same-sex marriages will result in more gay people.

This clearly illustrates that attempting to protect a child’s sexual orientation (hoping for a heterosexual one) is inadequately and unnecessarily addressed by a ban, and again shows that the ban is really about denying same-sex couples the benefits of a civil marriage freely available to the rest of society. Again, the purpose of these laws is to discriminate which isn’t a good reason for passing the law in the first place. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal, isn’t it?

Other folks claim that homosexuality isn’t natural, that human beings are the only critters on earth that act this way. While homosexual behavior is completely unnatural for heterosexual people, it is equally true that heterosexual behavior is unnatural to homosexual people. However, this does not mean that homosexuality is inherently unnatural.

Additionally, homosexual behavior has been observed in many species. Male tree swallows have been observed in homosexual behavior (Lombardo, et. al. 1994). Penguins, scarab beetles, bonobos (close relatives of the chimpanzee), and black swans have been observed engaging in homosexual activity. In fact, some 1500 species have been observed in homosexual behavior in the wild (Driscoll, E. 2008).

It certainly suggests that for some humans, the behavior may indeed be natural. When the natural world is considered, homosexual behavior is found through out and therefore has the appearance of being a natural behavior not limited to human beings. In this regard, any fair minded person would have to agree that this argument isn’t valid.

In terms of inclusiveness, same-sex marriage bans do not include other unnatural behaviors such as tattooing, piercing, wearing finger nail polish or the cutting or dying of one’s hair. It fails to include breast implants, face lifts and hair transplants. All of these are clearly unnatural behaviors found no where else in nature. The ban is clearly under-inclusive.

Given that banning of same-sex marriage does nothing to attain the stated goal of reducing presumed unnatural behavior amongst humans, one can only conclude that the purpose of these laws is not the stated goal, but rather to discriminate, which is no good reason.

What about the justification for a ban being that it has traditionally been one man, one woman? If we exclude the Mormon Church which legally practiced polygamy for a brief time in our history and Native Americans who practiced polygamy for some 10,000 years on this land, then yes, it has always been one man, one woman. Traditions are a good thing, right? Like the good, fine traditions of Thanksgiving, putting lights up over the holidays and Halloween. These are all good traditions. One man, one woman is a good American tradition indeed. What’s wrong with simply banning same-sex marriages based on tradition? In terms of equal protection under the U.S. constitution, the argument that it is tradition isn’t valid (Varnum v. Brien, 2009).

There was a time not that long ago here in the United States where the marriage of people from different races was outlawed. It was a tradition to not marry a person of another race. Many states actually made the tradition into laws making it illegal for a black person to marry a white person. It was called unnatural. It wasn’t until 1987 that Mississippi repealed the state statute forbidding "the marriage of a white person and a Negro" ( Unknown, 2005). A black man (or woman) could very well be lynched in certain parts of America for even having a sexual or love relationship with a white person, or for simply being innocent yet accused of it.

Other American traditions that have been outlawed include slavery; election laws based on educational level (and other Jim Crow Laws); separate-but-equal laws (segregation); discrimination based on age, sex, race, or religion; women not being allowed to vote; and being able to assault and batter a female spouse or one’s child. In fact, discrimination in the work place based on sexual orientation is illegal in the United States, isn’t it? At one time or another, these were all American traditions. Yet America has a long and justified history of not keeping things the same simply to keep them the same.

When a law is passed that has no other governmental objective other than to maintain the tradition of one man, one woman marriages, it fails to have any legal validity when equal protection under the constitution of the United States is concerned (Varnum v. Brien, 2009. p. 52). If laws passed simply to institutionalize a tradition were constitutional in regard to equal protection, inter-racial marriage bans would be legal, spousal abuse would be legal, child abuse would be legal, racial discrimination would be legal and a whole host of other things that were once American traditions would be legal.

Therefore, it has been clearly shown that for the single reason of maintaining the tradition of one man, one woman, the government has no legitimate reason for the ban. Denying same-sex couples the benefits of a civil marriage freely available to the rest of society based on their sexual orientation results in denying them equal protection under the constitution. In other words, the effect of these laws is discrimination. Discrimination should never be a reason to pass laws, should it? Discrimination is unconstitutional, is it not?

The most difficult discussion to have related to a reason for banning same-sex marriages is that of religious conviction. Simply put, for the majority of Americans, their religion tells them that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, and un-natural and this is perfectly legitimate and legal. These churches will never marry a gay couple, never condone the behavior and are within their rights to do so. Yet, not all religions or churches believe this.

Americans have a right to follow or not follow what ever religion they wish. This right is in the U.S. Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”. Individuals have the right to exercise their own religion, or no religion, and that in so doing, they will remain free from any government influence or compulsion (Washington, et. al., 1791).

From a governmental perspective, the banning of same-sex marriage is a civil matter, not a religious one: each ban makes civil marriage for same-sex couples illegal. Yet, same-sex marriage bans do not protect every American citizen’s religious convictions as is required by the Bill of Rights. On the contrary: for those religions and churches who believe same-sex marriages are as sacred as opposite-sex marriages, the ban infringes on their constitutional right to exercise their own religion. They are neither free from government interference nor from government compulsion. They are forced to follow the religious belief of a different faith, a different religion, and a different church.

In short, the government is showing favor to one religion over another. If the goal of the same-sex marriage ban is to protect religious conviction and the result of the ban is the infringement of individual religious freedom, then indeed, the ban has utterly failed at the stated goal and accomplished the opposite of that goal.

On the other hand, allowing same-sex marriages does not require churches or religions that are against them to marry same-sex couples. Allowing same-sex marriage insures the religious freedom of all Americans. By allowing same-sex marriages, the government is preventing one religion or church from forcing their beliefs, via legal means, upon another. This is exactly what our constitution is supposed to do: protect all Americans from an officially endorsed state religion.

Allowing same-sex marriage furthers religious freedom in America while the passing of same-sex marriage bans to protect religious conviction has the opposite effect. Banning it infringes upon the religious freedom of certain groups of Americans. Therefore, the banning of same-sexed marriage based on religious conviction fails to accomplish its goal in the worst possible way: it violates freedom of and from religion.

This clearly illustrates the ban’s effect is to deny same-sex couples not only the benefits of a civil marriage freely available to the rest of society, but their religious freedoms as well. In other words, the purpose of these laws is to discriminate against individuals, not to protect religious conviction. Discrimination and religious oppression should never be a reason to pass laws and so no good reason is found here, either.

The last common reason people argue for banning same-sex marriage is their belief that this will ultimately result in the legalization of polygamous marriages. The first things that tend to pop into people’s minds when polygamy is mentioned are the Mormon cults of the American southwest. Forced child marriages, teenage male children forced out of those communities to reduce competition for the women, sexual abuse, spousal abuse and child abuse are the most common elements of polygamy mentioned consistently in news reposts.

However, there is another group of Americans that routinely practice polygamy albeit in the shadows. They are the American Islamists. The Islamic religious law allows a man to take a second wife if the first wife can not have children. Additionally, the husband is required by religious law to treat each wife the same. If he buys clothes for the first wife, he must buy clothes for the second. If he buys a car for the second, he must also buy one for the first. Two nights he must sleep with the first wife and two nights he must then sleep with the second (Badawi, Jamal, 1998). Rarely are the types of problems that are found in Mormon cults found within the Islamic religious community. With the Islamic Law being about 1500 years old, almost as old as the Christian Law, should the government favor one religious law over another?

Independent of legalizing same-sex marriages, the question of polygamy with respect to religious freedoms may indeed become an issue in this nation. Banning same-sex marriages fails to prevent religious cults, American Islamists, or even average Americans from practicing polygamous marriage, creating a class of felons not readily seen by the public. Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. They are called Polygamy Laws, not same-sex marriage bans.

Again, the stated goal of preventing polygamous marriages in America is not furthered in any way by the passage of bans on same-sex marriages. Laws all ready exist that make polygamous marriage illegal. Redundancy isn’t necessary, especially inept redundancy. Not one of these bans or state constitutional amendments mentions polygamy and is therefore under-inclusive in scope. Once more, this is neither a valid reason nor a good reason for discriminating against a group of our own citizens.

In spite of no good reason being put forth, 29 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages and another 14 states have legislation banning them (Unknown, 2009). As Americans, we would never stand for banning inter-racial marriage or domestic violence or denying voting rights to groups based on sex, sexual orientation or race. To do so would be ignorant, unconstitutional and definitely un-American. We should not stand for banning same-sex marriages for these same reasons.

So then, why are a majority of Americans so willing to openly discriminate against a group of their own mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews?

---

References:

Varnum v. Brien, No. 07-1499, Iowa Supreme Court Ruling, (2009) Daily Transcript News. Retrieved on April 3, 2009 from http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/iowa040309.pdf

Patterson, C., Wainright, J., Russell, S., Teenagers of Same-Sex Parents Developing Normally, Study Finds... (2004, November 15). Ascribe Newswire: Health, Retrieved March 27, 2009, from Health Source - Consumer Edition database. Retrieved on March 27, 2009 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hxh&AN=15157808&site=ehost-live

Unknown. (2005, August). THE YEAR WE WERE BORN. Smithsonian, Retrieved March 27, 2009, from MAS Ultra - School Edition database. Retrieved on March 27, 2009 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ulh&AN=17726263&site=ehost-live

Sokolowski, R. (2004, December 6). The Primacy of Procreation. America, 191(18), 14-15. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from Professional Development Collection database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=15174679&site=ehost-live

Huppke, R. (2009, March 23). Two views on what marriage means. Chicago Tribune (IL), Retrieved March 27, 2009, from Newspaper Source database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W62100070859&site=ehost-live

Washington, et. al., 1791. Bill of Rights: A brief History. Cornell University Law School, retrieved April 26, 2009 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

Unknown, 2007. Sexual Orientation. University of South Carolina Counseling and Human Development Center, Retrieved on April 26, 2009 from http://www.sa.sc.edu/shs/chdc/sexualorientation.shtml

Lombardo, Michael P., Bosman, Ruth M., Faro, Christine A., Houtteman, Stephen G., Kluisza, Timothy S. (1994), Homosexual Copulations by Male Tree Swallow., The Wilson Bulletin, Vol. 106, No. 3 (Sep., 1994), pp. 555-557; Published by: Wilson Ornithological Society. Retrieved on April 26, 2009 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4163456

Driscoll, E. (2008, June). Bisexual Species. Scientific American Mind, 19(3), 68-73. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from MasterFILE Premier Database from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=32576078&site=ehost-live

Unknown (2009). Statewide Marriage Prohibitions. Human Rights Campaign; retrieved April 5, 2009 from http://www.hrc.org/documents/marriage_prohibitions.pdf

Badawi, Jamal (1998). Polygamy in Islamic Law. Islam for Today, Retrieved April 26, 2009 from http://www.islamfortoday.com/polygamy5.htm