Should There Be a Constitutional Amendment that Allows Gay Marriage to Become Legal?
The issue of same-sex marriages has attracted a lot of debate in the 21st century as various groups come out in open to demand for their rights. Researchers have been keen to point that using the constitution to legalize same-sex marriages can cause more problems for society. It is from this standpoint that this research has added towards the opposition on amending the constitution in favor of gay marriages. Based on already existing research this paper concludes that from a religious, moral, and ethical standpoint, gay marriages should never be legalized through constitutional amendments.
Gay marriage (marriage between individuals of a similar sex) is a type of marriage existing between two people of a similar biological sex or gender identity. The legal recognition of most of these same-sex marriages becomes a constant worry with reference to equal marriage or marriage equality especially by the supporters. The introduction of laws addressing same-sex marriage continues to vary across various jurisdictions as there are various accomplishments which are managed through distinctive legislative changes onto various marriage laws as well as court rulings which are on the basis of constitutional guarantees in terms of equality and through direct popularity of votes (through ballot initiatives and referendums). The due recognition of gay marriage is mostly an issue that underlies the scopes of the political, social, human, and civil rights paradigms including the many religious nations across the world while debates continue arising over the prudence of same-sex couples with regard to allowing them engage in marriage or be required to continue holding a different status (mostly a civil union) or even face denial of recognition for such rights as mentioned by Wintemute and Andenęs (2001). Having to allow same-gender couples to engage in legal marriages can be considered to be a very critical rights issue.
Such an introduction of same-sex marriage continues to vary in terms of jurisdiction which will in turn result from the due legislative changes for most marriage laws, as well as court challenges which are on the basis of constitutional guarantees with regard to equality, and the legalization of the same by voters through ballot initiatives and referendums.
As indicated by Zastrow and Kirst-Ashman, (2009), there are a wide variety of cons raised towards encouraging the achievement for gay marriage legalization. The first dimension is the fact that gay marriage fundamentally undermines most of the family values because the concept of marriage is diverse and it is upon each of them to develop their individual dimensions as man or woman. Not legitimizing same-sex marriage will be an express illustration of denial of the basic human rights. This argument promoting the aspect of gay marriage is on the fact that each human being has a profound right of living the way they want to. They have fundamental rights of choosing their sexuality, their partners, as well as the family they want to build. Some of the other pros of legalizing gay marriage is the fact that it will be one of the basic building blocks of the nation and its neighborhood. Increasingly, the basic social aspects of equality state that all persons are equally created (p. 2). Therefore, preventing homosexuals from getting married will not necessarily increase the levels of heterosexual marriages. In this line, the prevention of homosexuals from getting married will as well not cause due increment in the procreation levels among the heterosexual couples. White (2008) argues that most countries have granted equal rights to all marginalized communities and women and homosexuals will be next in line. The fact that marriage is a civil right means that being raised by same-sex parents of either gender will not necessarily pronounce a disadvantage to the children (p.4).
Having this in mind, people will heavily suggest legalizing gay marriages as any efforts to the contrary will have the government denying basic human rights to the gay population. Amending the constitution to favor gay marriages will be particularly beneficial to gays and the society in general. People proposing gay marriages hold the opinion that legalizing them has very many benefits for both the ones leading gay lifestyles and the society as a whole. They also proclaim that gay couples getting married will not rampantly indulge in a number of extramarital affairs for those who are simply living together in the exception of marriages.
Zastrow and Kirst-Ashman add that legalization of gay marriage will be critical in sending out positive signals to various societies which marriages need to be based only on love. Increasingly, the perception is that gay couples cannot naturally procreate and they will most likely adopt children. This gives plenty of orphaned children a more comfortable and loving home set up that they can utilize. One of the contentious issues is that it continues to be legalized in most parts of world. By subsequent state governments, the pros and cons of gay marriage are currently under contemplation. Looking into the way that things are progressing with such social issues, there are still long waits before having the same sex partners having rights of living as respectfully as the rest of the heterosexuals in the world. Clearly, the denial of such rights will squarely fit as a religious freedom violation for both civil and religious marriages being classified as separate institutions. Marriage benefits like joint ownership as well as medical decision-making capacity are made well available across all couples. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle in the modern day with most evidence offering strong support towards the biological causation. In addition, denying such marriages will be categorized as minority discrimination. Furthermore, the same sex marriages do not directly hurt society or individuals in particular. This means that the only thing which needs to be taken into consideration in such a marriage is love (p.5).
Wolfson (2004), argues that a number of criticisms have been raised against the issue of marriage amongst homosexuals. This is because it is particularly detrimental to the overall marriage institution. This argument is raised against gay marriage on the grounds that if they will be legalized, the marriage institution will adversely lose its significance. Initially, marriages are perceived to be solemnized based on the human race continuity. Both men and women are bound through marriage for the purposes of procreation only. Amending the constitution to make gay marriages legitimate will offer all the wrong signals to the generations in the future who constantly perceive marriages between men and women unnecessary in raising children. Such views will eventually shake the initial foundation of the society. That is why the individuals who are well against gay marriages are for the opinion that saving families and society will generally consider having gay marriages not legalized. The second argument raised for this is that it is a critical contributor to moral degradation. This drawback within gay marriage is the fact that legalizing them will in turn cause consistent moral degradation. Having two men in an intimate relationship creates a high probability for them to stray while having affairs outside as compared to relationships involving heterosexuals because women are in most cases monogamists. In addition, men may face the general inability to fully domesticate to each other like a man can domesticate a woman. This will consequently lead to several vices through which men engage in excessive drinking and gambling (p. 1)…