Catch up America: Gay Marriage is a Basic Civil Right

Ricardo Alvarez
Engl. 313
Professor Wexler
Final Paper

America views itself as a country established on the principle of providing civil rights for all people. Theoretically our country claims that “all men are created equal” but the road to egalitarianism has gotten off to quite an inauspicious start. One contemporary issue that exemplifies this is gay marriage. Both sides in the debate of whether or not to allow gay marriage in the United States provide logical arguments. Conservatives assert the importance of keeping the foundation of the family intact in order to keep the country “healthy,” but liberals contest there must remain a separation of state and church. Marriage itself is too complex to fully define in one way or another. Yet, our nation’s government has found it fit to step in and decide whether or not marriage should be deemed solely for heterosexual couples. Whether for or against, there are various factors that must be examined in order to fully comprehend the severity of banning gay marriage by governmental law. This essay asserts that gay marriage should be allowed because of political and economic reasons but it also examines the potential harm that could result from embracing another form of institutionalization. Politically, gay marriage has faced many battles. American politics has been firmly rooted in the separation of church and state but when it comes to gay marriage this dichotomy becomes less apparent. Perhaps this is attributed to the United States’ long history of puritanical beliefs. Many religions deem homosexuality as morally wrong and deviant. In Judeo-Christian text, God is said to have punished the village of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:5, Jude 1:7) because of their homosexual behavior. This fear of God’s wrath has even seeped into contemporary politics. As recent as this November, the conservative people of the country have come together to “salvage the sanctity of marriage.” This terminology alone is fundamentally wrong, due to the fact that “sanctity” is a religious concept. The fact that politicians have taken a liking to openly employing this jargon is reflective of a lack of adherence to the concept of the separation between church and states in the conservative sectors. Ann Ferguson sheds light on conservative anti-gay sentiment when she says,
There are religious objections that religious conservatives put forth by citing thousands of years of tradition of heterosexual-only marriage and interpreting passages in the bible. Most of these passages detail the complimentary gender roles that are ‘natural’ and god-given for women and men in heterosexual families, the biological procreative function intended by God in marriage, and the sinful nature of homosexual sex.
Ferguson is stating that the main point of marriage is to reproduce and to fulfill the intentions of God in the eyes of many conservative critics. In short, anti- gay marriage sentiment among American political conservatives is often tied to biblical explanations of the abomination of homosexuality, let alone gay marriage.
Along with religious notions, many same-sex critics argue that they cannot morally accept gay marriage. Robert Knight, a conservative gay marriage critic, states, “[Gay] [marriage] would violate freedom of religion because people in civil society would have to tolerate as moral what their religion tells them is immoral” (Ferguson 5). If we were to apply Knight’s rationale on a bigger scale, then the country would have to outlaw any and every aspect of life that contradicts his or someone else’s religion. Knight’s statement is a contradiction within itself. He is utilizing that law in order to place it where it best fits his cause. The constitution allows freedom of religion and this in turn is what gives Knight the liberty to make this statement. Morality does not relate to marriage since it is legally a civil matter. Whereas anti-gay proponents argue that gay marriage is morally and religiously unacceptable, gay rights activists combat these notions stating that it is a matter of civil rights. In the twenty first century, American heterosexual married couples enjoy many benefits that homosexual partners have no access to. The Hawaiian Supreme Court case, Baehr v. Lewin, outlines a list of marital privileges:
1. a variety of state income tax advantages, including deductions, credits, rates, exemptions and estimates;
2. public assistance from and exemptions relating to the Department of Human Services;
3. control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property;
4. rights relating to dowry, courtesy, and inheritance (Egan 5).
These marital privileges would greatly benefit gay couples and the entire economy would also receive a boost.
Gay marriage activists argue the importance of allowing all people in the United States to obtain civil rights in order to maintain the validity of the Bill of Rights. In order to remain a democratic nation, religion should not factor into any laws. Every citizen is offered many liberties, but Ferguson states, “one common argument for gay marriage is that government denial of the legal right to gay marriage deprives gays and lesbians of access to the social sanction and status that marriage confers, and hence to full adulthood, rights to familial or joint property and inheritance rights, and full citizenship” (Ferguson 1). If gay and lesbian adults cannot marry whom they choose, they are not being treated as adults under the law or even as citizens. In order to be considered a full citizen, the individual should obtain all rights established in our country’s Bill of Rights. In these times of economic hardship, gay marriage would provide a much-needed boost to our floundering economy. In Christine Halverson’s, Gay Marriage Makes Cents, she elucidates the fact that allowing gay marriage would bring in revenue to various struggling companies and the government. Halverson estimates that “legalizing gay marriage would lead to an annual increase in federal government income taxes of between $0.3 billion and $1.3 billion” (Halverson 1). If these are substantial estimations in government revenue, then it seems only logical to overturn an outdated and heavily religious law. In basic terms of revenue, the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau reported 601,209 unmarried same-sex partner households in the United States living in 99.3% of all counties in the nation. If same-sex marriage was legalized, then there are potentially 601,209 weddings that would contribute revenue to a sluggish economy. Halverson continues to express the magnitude of income lost with the banning of gay marriage as she states, “According to Bride's Magazine, the average wedding costs $19,000. Two hundred-fifty thousand more marriages at the average wedding rate would result in wedding costs of $4.75 billion! Mind you, this doesn't include the amount spent on wedding gifts. As a bonus, the first states to allow gay marriage will likely experience an influx of tourism and tourist-related economic activity” (Halverson 1). Legal fees, wedding cost, and all the way to simple small businesses like florists would find a boost in business and revenue. The natural reaction for a capitalist country is to find ways to create revenue, and gay marriage has the potential to quickly redirect the direction of the economy. Gay marriages would mirror the common trend in marriage; divorce. Halverson states, “For some marriages there is even the coup de grâce: divorce. As the majority of divorcés will tell you-the most expensive part of getting into a marriage is getting out. While divorces can range anywhere from several hundred dollars to millions, divorce is a multi-billion dollar-a-year industry. Assuming that gay couples divorce at the same rate as heterosexual ones” (Halverson 1). Regardless of morality, religion, or acceptance, gay marriage would fulfill a multitude of dilemmas. The revenue gay marriage would produce could help stop the downward spiral of the current economy.

In relation to all the positive outcomes of gay marriage, there is also chance of falling into a catch 22. Gays and lesbians have fought to assert their sexual identity in a society that is historically heterosexist. Could the enactment of gay marriage stifle their sexual identities? In order to answer this question one must define the concept of marriage as an institution. Michel Foucault expresses the dramatic implications of marriage when he states, “There are two great systems conceived by the West for governing sex: the law of marriage and the order of desires…” (Foucault 685). Thus by the 19th century, marriage was used to promote order and prevent ‘deviant’ acts such as polygamy. Marriage was also viewed as an organizing institution meant to also reproduce the efficiency of capitalist regimes (Horkheimer and Adorno 2000). As factories perfected the set-up and implementation of assembly lines, marriage was viewed as a tool, which could perfect order and efficiency in the home. The woman maintained the role of home keeper while the men took on the role of the breadwinner. Thus marriage played out the power dynamics from market economy ideology. Although politically and economically gay marriage can be seen as liberating, the institution of marriage confines two people to a structured power balance. Gays and lesbians will be placed into a culture that will divert the relationship towards what Foucault calls “the machinery of power” (Foucault 687). Degan also states, “while, gay marriage may appear to play the subversive role of challenging the institution of marriage, in actuality, it is rationalized by conforming to this institutional norm and invoking the language and logic of political economy to defend its position” (Egan 5). Thus regardless of whom it unites, marriage like most other institutions forces people to play out certain roles that at times can pose a challenge to their other formulated identities. Some theorists go further to explore the potential of marriage being divisive in the homosexual community. Ferguson states, “…Butler raises the poststructuralist concern that the discourse of gay marriage may be another way of disciplining the queer community so as to create a new hierarchy— the socially acceptable gay married versus the queer abjected Others, whose chosen kin and sexual practices continue to be despised” (Ferguson 7). For example, if gay marriage is allowed, the homosexuals who get married will extract themselves from the gay community and be one step closer to heteronormative ideals. Perhaps other gays and lesbians will be categorized as nonconformist and continue to be viewed as deviants by the homosexuals who have married. Another potential conflict could be the pressure to marry. If gay marriage is allowed, many homosexuals might succumb to the pressure to conform to the institution of marriage and become like their heterosexual counterparts and marry because it is what is expected of them.

In conclusion, gay marriage will remain a heavily debated topic for some time, regardless of the outcome. When speaking of gay marriage one must remove oneself from traditional views of marriage. Gay marriage is a political battle that has been pulled into judgment from a religious and moral lens, but the truth of the matter is that it should be solely a political matter. Civil rights are really what is at stake when confronting the issue of gay marriage. Americans find it intrusive to have the word God in the pledge of allegiance, but can live with the word God on our currency. We cannot haphazardly decide what should have religious implications in our society; rather the separation between church and state should be delineated more clearly. Civil rights are guaranteed to all citizens of America and at this time we are denying many Americans their basic civil rights with no other argument than that of religion and morality. Furthermore our country is reporting record losses and grim predictions of the future of our economic status. Homosexual couples are willing to pay whatever it takes to gain legal marriage status. As a country we need to place personal beliefs and morality to the side for the good of Americans and its economy. Gay marriage would become a business within itself. There would be a boom in jobs and revenue that could administer a much-needed boost in the economy. We as a people have come too far to continue to deny human beings basic civil rights and at the cost of millions of dollars on top of that as well. Although there are concrete political and economic justifications for gay marriage, the homosexual community must be weary of what they are fighting for. Marriage has the power to institutionalize its patrons. Marriage has been historically known as a power structure created to impose rules and regulations on sex and debauchery. The basic Mr. and Mrs. implications of Master and Property of Master are still heavily visible within the institution of marriage. The gay community has to contend that they do not succumb to assimilation into an institution that forces people to take a role within the relationship, society, and internally. This may also create a division within a community that will be detrimental to the cohesiveness of the movement. Overall, I think gay marriage must be allowed and made into a law. It is only common sense and legally there is no solid, comprehensive reason as to why this community should be denied this right. It is a blatant denial of a basic right to all citizens and to continue to deny the Gay and Lesbian community marriage, we as a nation have taken several leaps backwards in our fundamental belief that all men/women are created equal. Like the word God to the religious and progress to liberals, these words are an irrevocable part of American national identity.


Works cited:

Egan, Kevin D. Reason’s Bondage: On the Rationalization of Sexuality. University Park: Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, 2005.

Ferguson, Ann. Gay Marriage: an American and Feminist dilemma. Indian: University Press, 2007.

Foucault, Michael. The History of Sex. Webct.Csun,edu. Handout 683-691.

Halverson, Christine. Gay Marriage Makes Cents. About.com: Economics.2004
http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/gay_marriage.htm