College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

K-State Collegian > Opinion

Allowing same-sex marriage would make all equal

By Beth Mendenhall

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Beth

Beth Mendenhall

The notion that “all men are created equal” has inspired the patriotism of generations of Americans since the Declaration of Independence. However, most of us are aware that this notion has never really been reflected in government policy.

The right to vote has been restricted based on class, sex and race in our not-so-distant past, but the modern inclusion of groups across these categories does not mean that all Americans enjoy equal legal rights.

The federal government and 44 states do not recognize the legal status of same-sex marriages, and the result is an unacceptable miscarriage of justice. A truly egalitarian government that respects the inherent worth and dignity of all Americans is impossible to attain while legal marriage rights are denied to same-sex couples.

The idea of the social contract undergirds our notion of democratic rule and has since the American Revolution. As citizens of the U.S., we give up certain rights in exchange for benefits provided by the government. We follow laws, pay taxes and serve on juries, among other duties. In exchange, we benefit from national defense, social services and legal recognition of documents like contracts, to name a few.

A government-issued marriage certificate is no different and bestows a number of important benefits. These include tax benefits, access to a spouse’s employer-provided insurance, the ability to be with a spouse in intensive care at the hospital, death benefits and many consumer benefits. Homosexual citizens give up certain rights and resources to the government just like every other U.S. citizen and should receive equal rights in return.

Discrimination based on arbitrary factors, like skin color or social class, have been rejected by the American populace, and rightly so. The denial of a marriage license to same-sex couples is just as un-American and undemocratic as denying a marriage license to a mixed-race couple or an impoverished one.

Many people assert that homosexuality is a deviant behavior that ought to be discouraged, but evidence from the natural world indicates that, far from deviant, homosexuality is a standard practice. More than 1,000 species of animals — from penguins to killer whales, bonobos to giraffes — have been observed regularly exhibiting homosexual behavior.

It seems that a strict definition of sexual orientation is more a social construct than verifiable science. Homosexuality isn’t a new feature of the human condition either. The ancient Greeks, respected for their democratic and philosophical tradition, embraced a homosexual relationship called “pederasty” among the aristocracy. A close look at many ancient societies reveals the same tolerance for what many today view as base and unnatural.

The separation of church and state ought to be respected for more reasons than I have space to elucidate. This means two things for same-sex marriage: first, that the government should not deny marriage benefits based on religious doctrine, and second, that no church has the obligation to grant a marriage ceremony to whomever they choose to exclude. If same-sex marriage were legalized in the United States, as it undoubtedly should be, that doesn’t mean that your church has to recognize these marriages or provide a church ceremony.

If same-sex marriage is a religious issue to you, then feel free to restrict it within your church. As American citizens, however, our tradition of recognizing all persons as “created equal” demands that we cease denying important benefits to our fellow citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation.


Beth Mendenhall is a senior in political science and philosophy. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.

Comments

22 comments
Next »
12
Reasoned Thought
Wed Nov 4 2009 14:39
This just in. Maine voters agree with the other 30 states who have put this to a vote: marriage is between one man and one woman.
Your name
Wed Sep 30 2009 21:38
"The notion that “all men are created equal” has inspired the patriotism of generations of Americans since the Declaration of Independence. However, most of us are aware that this notion has never really been reflected in government policy."

did you know that up until the 1960's (hippie dom) that the human race as a whole was referred to as men? the progressive movement that started in the 1920's really started pushing the idea that using words like men were demeaning to women.

reasoned logic
Tue Sep 29 2009 20:58
The Federal government should not have any say as to who can be married or not. That is not in their enumerated powers. The states should be able to decide what is marriage and what isn't. The only way that the federal government should be able to codify one way or the other is by Constitutional amendment, but because the amendment that would get passed would be along the lines of the "Defense of Marriage act", those pushing for homosexual relationships to be called marriage won't go that route.

In fact, many states have already weighed in on this issue. Every place where it has come to a vote of the people, people have voted to keep marriage defined the way it has been for eons. Even in California, for heaven's sake. In addition, many of these same states already have civil unions codified into law, wherein the participants have the same rights and responsibilities that those who are married do. The only thing different (other than mainstream acceptance) is the word "married."

It is disingenuous to argue that homosexuals not being able to marry someone of the same sex is akin to the Civil Rights movement or the Women's Suffrage movement. Women and blacks were not allowed to VOTE (or own property, etc.) because of who they were. Homosexuals cannot get married because of what they DO. Homosexuals are not denied any rights in the civil realm, especially in light of the civil union legislation in many states.

I reject out of hand any arguments against homosexuals getting married that involve bestiality or underage marriages. What I mean is that if someone says "we can't let homosexuals get married because then why can't someone marry their dog" or "...why can't someone marry their 13 year old neighbor." These arguments depend on people agreeing with them due to the "ick" factor, not on reason. The other entity in a relationship such as this does not have the legal capacity to enter into a legal agreement, so they cannot enter into a marriage contract. However, I do think the argument "if homosexual unions are allowed to be called marriage, then polygamous relationships also should be allowed to be called marriage" is valid.

I read a blog by someone who is in a mixed-race lesbian relationship, and has been for 17 years. 9 years ago, they met a man who they invited into their relationship. One of the lesbians married this man, and they all live together in the same house, all moneys are shared, one of them is having a baby...and these aren't Mormons. They live in the Twin Cities area and from what I can read on her blog, are very liberal. Should these three adults be allowed to enter into a civil union contract, have a ceremony and be married?

If you are for homosexual "marriage" then you should also want them to be married, if they want to. I mean, they love each other, and that is usually the argument for homosexual "marriage." Logically, it follows that if you want the above triple to allowed to be married, then you also should have no problem with FLDS polygamous marriage either. If you are for one but against the other, I would really like to hear your argument.

What we term marriage is really two unrelated social constructs mashed together: religious and legal. In Kansas, you sign a legal document at the courthouse applying to be married, wait at least three days, and then sign the papers, with witnesses and someone duly authorized by the state to confirm the legal contract was entered into without undue pressure (could be a judge, could be a priest, could be someone who gets their certification from the internet). Most people then have a religious ceremony. But these two actions, the signing of the legal contract and the religious ceremony, occupy two different realms. The first part, signing the papers, should be called a "civil union" and should be what the government recognizes. If your state allows civil unions for homosexuals, they should sign the same papers as heterosexuals who sign those papers. The term marriage should be reserved for the religious ceremony.

HLW
Fri Sep 11 2009 22:04
@Porter

The state is giving out benefits to married couples, so it allows marriages that it wants to encourage. The state says nothing about living together, but when it comes to state-controlled benefits, of course the government has a say.

However, you are completely correct. We should be pushing to overturn the no-fault divorce laws as well. Adultery is in the same Biblical category as homosexuality.

Porter
Fri Sep 11 2009 17:40
Why is it the business of the state to tell you who you can marry?

If the sanctity of marriage is really at stake, why is there no push to outlaw divorce?

QD
Fri Sep 11 2009 15:33
Sorry...I'm against gay marriage and always will be.
HLW
Fri Sep 11 2009 00:20
Animals also rape and murder each other on a regular basis, but that doesn't make it right.

As for your appeal to being "created equal", that very statement assumes that there IS a God, and that He enforces some moral standard. It's pretty clear that the Framers were referring to the God of the Bible, and it's pretty clear "what Jesus would say": "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). If you want to use moral justification for homosexual marriage, don't go looking for it in the Bible.

Your name
Thu Sep 10 2009 16:56
There are no legitimate arguments against Gay Marriage that are not religiously-based or basely homophobic.
This is literally Kevin Bacon
Wed Sep 9 2009 23:47
"Nothing good has come from progressive liberalism. And that is what drives the so-called same-sex debate."

Okay. Your two arguments are:
1) Liberal things, like being PC, created homelessness and increased STDs; and...
2) Another liberal thing, gay marriage, must create more bad things.

Regarding your first argument:
A) correlation does not equal causation. in this case, fewer people saying the word "bum" did not increase homelessness.

Regarding your second argument; your logic being:
1) liberalism yields bad things
2) liberalism is on the side on same sex marriage
C) same-sex marriage must be a bad thing

Well, this certainly isn't the most fallacious argument I have ever seen on same sex marriage. Oh wait, it is the other thing: the most fallcious argument I have ever seen on same sex marriage. Liberalism does not always yield bad things. It is not what has caused every bad thing in your life. You cannot attack gay marriage without actually--y'know...attacking gay marriage. Beth gave you a lot to think about. You should--y'know--think about it.

Chas R.
Wed Sep 9 2009 23:13
This article seems to be well written with the appearance of being logical in taking a view that everyone needs to be equal. However, there are serious flaws in the article. First, this statement about 1,000 species of animals also have homosexual relationships. No basis is given for this new study, when it was conducted, and who paid for the study. (ie. Did Lambda Legal pay to have this study done?) Also, this issue of forcing pastors to perform gay marriages is not really an issue. Pastors can say no to anyone, even hetero couples who are not part of their faith, or have not completed proper marriage counseling. The real concern is the legal threat of forcing private businesses to provide services in support of gay marriages when it contrary to the moral convictions of the people providing those services, such as wedding photographers and florist to , marriage counselors, or doctors who perform artificial insemination. These are the people who need protection from gays who are sue happy to come against anyone who disagrees with them. Also, if something happens to my wife and me, what is to keep our children from being adopted out to a gay couple, depriving our children the right to have both a mommy and a daddy? Finally, will our nation stop at marriage just between two persons. What about polygamy? That will be the next battle, as it is now a big issue in Europe and in South Africa. This article leaves a lot of issues not adequately addressed.
Seek help
Wed Sep 9 2009 22:54
"You have been told enough lies that you believe so-called same-sex marriage is about someone's rights."
I would love to hear you explain how it isn't about someones rights? 'The radical homosexual element?' Those terrorists!
Don
Wed Sep 9 2009 17:54
"Well, we know what that got us: Drug addiction, sexually transmitted diseases, homelessness, unwanted pregnancies and broken families. Nothing good has come from progressive liberalism. And that is what drives the so-called same-sex debate."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure none of those bad things happened before "progressive liberalism" (whatever that is) appeared on the scene in the 1960's. Damn hippies!

Seriously. Read a book. Stay away from the Kool-aid.

Manny Dies
Wed Sep 9 2009 15:25
Gay marriage does not affect my marriage or the love for my wife one way or the other. For those narrow minded bigots, you need to ask yourself "What would Jesus say?"
Rick
Wed Sep 9 2009 14:41
It's sad our young people have been indoctrinated by this PC way of thinking. And to even compare what happens with several species in the wild to that of human culture and behavior is, at best, flawed. You have been told enough lies that you believe so-called same-sex marriage is about someone's rights. This has been, and still is, an agenda by the radical element within the 'homosexual community'. Why is it all the moderate homosexuals speak up and understand it's not about marriage that you don't hear the media report on them and give them a voice? They don't fit the agenda of a small minority of people in this country.

We are raising spoiled, misguided children through political correctness and progressive liberalism. Fortunately not all of our society is brainwashed and are critical thinkers which exposes all the socialism, progressive-liberalism and the political correctness that has harmed this great country.

I know some very good-hearted, decent people who happen to be far-left liberals. They just don’t see, or choose to see, what is right in front of them. These people allow emotion to run their lives. IF something doesn’t feel good then they have been led to believe it is wrong. Kind of like the hippies in the sixties- ‘If it feels good do it’. Well, we know what that got us: Drug addiction, sexually transmitted diseases, homelessness, unwanted pregnancies and broken families. Nothing good has come from progressive liberalism. And that is what drives the so-called same-sex debate.

Loss of sanctity
Wed Sep 9 2009 14:26
"I can't imagine how giving the legal and civil rights to same-sex partners is going to do anything to harm traditional marriages. "

The heterosexuals would loose their superiority if they had to compare their three marriages, two divorces, multiple adulterous affairs and children born out of wedlock to a monogamous same-sex couple together for 20+ years.

You are right there should be no difference in recognition of any couple in secular society and law. Churches and religions are free to discriminate as they choose.

Your name
Wed Sep 9 2009 14:25
good editorial. Hard to argue against gay marriage without quoting some religious doctrine. You should write an article on the history of puritanical dogma in the United States. So many issues that linger and fester in our public conscious (such as gay marriage) are borne out of puritanical, patriarchal philosophies of the past. These philosophies were developed within a culture dominated by white males and during a time when education and literacy were luxuries. I do not discount the value of our history and the need to recognize it, but we are a more educated populous and we have evolved into a more complex society. Time to quit fighting it and evolve into a more thoughtful, practical and realistic society that values all varieties of our species. Please continue the good work Mendenhall; you are using your gifts to get people to think and hopefully change.
Bibliography
Wed Sep 9 2009 13:07
ah yes, the inevitable "dude use google" comment. As if most of us don't have jobs(I know... economy. FYI I'm on my lunch) and can comb through pages of google search results all day.
Thanks for at least giving me some starting point however with Oslo Norway natural history museum. I'll get on that.
your name
Wed Sep 9 2009 12:47
it probably came from this exhibit at an Oslo, Norway natural history museum. do a google search.
Bibliography
Wed Sep 9 2009 12:38
Not that I oppose gay marriage, but where exactly did this quote come from?
"More than 1,000 species of animals — from penguins to killer whales, bonobos to giraffes — have been observed regularly exhibiting homosexual behavior."
I've heard of animals exhibiting homosexual tendancies, but 1000s? What study did this come from?
divorced and bitter
Wed Sep 9 2009 12:35
To all those who oppose gay marriage: Let the gays get married, then they can get divorced and find out what alimony is and they'll never want to get married again.
Next »
12






log out