My daughter wrote a speech for class that it is apropos to the recent legislative ruling in Vermont, and I asked her if I could post it. She received a standing ovation from her class when she was finished.

Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

in the United States

In the United States completely committed homosexual couples have none of the legal rights that protect heterosexual married couples. If one partner becomes ill, the other is not guaranteed the right to be with him or her in the hospital. If one partner dies, distant nieces and nephews have more of a claim to the dead partner’s belongings than the living partner does. They file “single” on their tax returns and, in most cases, are not allowed to be on each other’s health plans. If two people love each other, shouldn’t they be allowed the same rights, privileges and responsibilities, no matter their genders? Apparently not.

The institution of marriage that some Americans are working so hard to protect from the invading homosexuals is supposed to be a sacred union. It is hard not to think that this sacred institution is in crisis considering the fact that shows like “The Bachelor,” “The Bachelorette,” and “How to Marry a Millionaire” top the charts and seem to be throwing the privilege of marriage in the face of homosexuals that would kill for the opportunity to marry their partners. Today I would like to discuss the outrageous injustice that is occuring in this country, the ban on Gay Marriage.

A few states are legalizing same-sex marriage, although those legalizations are constantly being challenged and overturned. Currently in the United States, marriage laws are determined on a state-by-state basis. The U.S. Government has yet to legalize gay marriage or any other kind of civil union for homosexuals. Allowing gay marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage, not hurt it. Only marriage provides a legal safety net protecting the emotional bonds and economic security of couples. Not only would allowing gay marriage in the U.S. strengthen the weakening institution of marriage in this country, but it would also show those who say that marriage is for the purpose of raising children and that two parents of the same sex are not adequately equipped to raise children that there is no basis for this opinion. First of all, children do well in homes where they are nurtured and loved, regardless of the parents’ genders. Secondly, many heterosexual couples choose not to, or are unable to, have children. Yet, their marriages are consired valid. Why should this be the case in a country where “all men are created equal?” Does this mean all straight men? Without the inclusion of homosexuals in the definition of legal marriage, the United States will continue to display its bigoted and discriminatory side to the rest of the world. It is about time that we, as Americans, begin to look at people as just that—people. All people deserve the right to love whomever they choose and shouldn’t be penalized based upon their sexual orientation. Not allowing same-sex marriages is just that, a penalty placed on gays by the “straights” in power...but why? Let’s explore that questions a little further, shall we?

I am going to begin by quoting Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court who stated that “We cannot accept the view that Amendment Two’s prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on these persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.” Clearly there is a problem.

There are many arugments for, and against, the legalization of same-sex marriage, but for the most part, all of these arugments seem to relate to the four most common beliefs or arguments regarding gay marriage. The first of the two most common arguments supporting same-sex marriage is that homosexual couples deserve the same legal protections that heterosexual couples do. They deserve to file taxes together, have joint health insurance, and have all the other perks associated with having a legal marriage. Is there any good reason to deprive these couples the rights of all other couples? Seeing your loved one in the hospital and getting status updates on him or her may seem like a basic right, but to homosexuals it is a privilege that they are working toward earning. The second major argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage is taht it would strengthen the failing institution that marriage has become in today’s society. Divorce rates continue to rise and television shows like “The Bachelor” poke fun at the so-called sacred institution of marriage by having the contestants play a game of real-life love BINGO. Jonathan Rauch, a same-sex marriage advocate, aruges that “same-sex marriage will signal Government’s, and therefore society’s, preference for marriage over other family arrangements” reinforcing marriage’s status at a time when that status is under extreme strain. According to a paper written by Rauch and Meezan, if same-sex marriage encourages marriage over non-marriage, then both adults and children will benefit.

One of the two key arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States is that marriage is a heterosexual institution made up exclusively of one man and one woman. This argument is not only the most common, but it is also, by far, the weakest. Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? Freedom of religion implies the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment, and because if doesn’t, no one has the right to impose rules simply because of something they preceive to be mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality. Several sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, religious freedom is being infringed. The Bible or any other religious document cannot be used to define marriage. Separation of Church and State negates any religious aspect of this argument. It only seems logical that if the straight community, or any other community for that matter, cannot give an acceptable reason to deny homosexuals the right to legally marry, then it shouldn’t be denied. Declaration concerning their own definitions of marriage made by conserviate straights are more like expression of prejudice rather than true arguments.

The second argument most commonly used against same-sex marriage in this country is that the main purpose of marriage is for reproductive purposes and not only can gay couples not reproduce, but the immorality of gay couples does not allow them to provide an optimum environment in which to raise children. Well, considering that society allows murderers, convicted felons, and known child molesters to get married and bring children into their marriage, I believe this argument to be completely without merit. If children are truly the priority here, why are criminals allowed to care for children? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and biological. Many scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. Any differences noted in these studes where found to be insignificant. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, in a a technical report, children who grow up with on or two gay parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. A child’s optimal development depends more on the nature of his or her relationships within the family than on the particular structure that it takes. The bottom line is that gay people are as capable of loving children as completely as anyone else.

As long as the U.S. continues to ban gay marriage, it will continue to send the message to Americans that homosexuals are second-class citizens. How can we expect society’s viewpoint to change without the change in Government’s viewpoint? The answer is, we can’t. I believe that if everyone sat down and thought of what it would feel like to know that you may not be allowed to see your spouse when they are dying, or to know that you may have to go to typically unfriendly in-laws to get any status updates on your spouse’s condition, or even just knowing that uninformed and perhaps uneducated people look at you and your children and believe in their hearts that you are putting the children in an unsafe or immoral environment not fit for their proper development, would have many people only beginning to see what gays go through in order to have a family in the United States in 2009. We have come a long way, but we still have much further to go. Give us the right to marry our loved ones, to adopt children that are rightfully ours, and to live our lives free from persecution. We, as homosexuals, want what most people want, a family that is taken care of and protected the best that it can be, and to do that we need to be able to marry our partner in the eyes of U.S. Law.