Gay Marriage in the United States

Gay marriage in the United States is a heavily debated issue. There are two clear cut sides, it should be legal because all citizens in the United States are entitled to the same rights and it should be illegal because it breaks the definition of what marriage is stated as in the constitution.
Personally I think that it should be an individual decision. The government should have no say in what to people fall in love and how they define their love. Telling someone that they can not marry another person based on the gender is simply discrimination based on sexual preference. Homosexuality is not considered the “social norm” in the United States however those who chose to practice should be entitled to the same rights as those heterosexual couples in the United States.
Today in the United States gay marriage is a state issue. This means that each state is allowed to decide whether or not they condone gay marriage. This decision came on the basis of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1966 set up by the Bill Clinton administration. Essentially it states that no state is required to recognize a same sex union and defines marriage as being between a man and a woman only. 38 states approved this act.
Currently in the United States as of 2004 11 states ban same sex marriage. However many do not oppose granting domestic partner benefits. Vermont was the first state in the United States to allow civil unions which essentially give homosexual couples all the same rights as heterosexual couples.
In the article that we read Peter Sprigg is against the idea of homosexual marriage. He argues that there are two key reasons why this should not be allowed. First marriage is specifically defined as a union between a man and women. Two men or two women being married would hold no validity. Secondly he says that homosexual relationships are harmful. He also argues the point that homosexual couples already have the same rights as heterosexual couples so why marry.
I would say that neither of these reasons carries enough weight to justify not allowing every individual to the same rights as others based on their sexual preference. Just because the constitution states that marriage is between a man and a woman only does not make it right. The constitution was written in 1787. Since then there have been several changes to it. For example women didn’t have the right to vote until 1920 when the Nineteenth Amendment granted them this right. The founders of the constitution made it so that we would be allowed to make changes when necessary. That is to say if we have never allowed changes then perhaps women would still have no rights and there would still be slavery. Today we look at those as normal everything is going to be radical when it first begins but that is not to say that one day it may be accepted.
Sprigg’s second argument that homosexual relationships are harmful is based completely on myths and rumors. He says that homosexual relationships are worse in several areas. One of the examples that he uses is that homosexual relationships will lead to adoption. In these homes there will not be both sexes of parents which will be harmful to the child’s development. There are no statistics that confirm this. You could also bring up the argument that there are heterosexual homes where one parent has left. This essentially is a home with only one sex parent. Does this mean that single mothers or fathers should not be allowed to have children?
Kurdek takes the other side on gay marriage and says that everyone should have the same rights to marry. He points out in contrast to Sprigg’s claim that gay relationships only differ in one area and that is social support. This could even be changed if it was made more acceptable.
Just because gay marriage does not meet the status quo in the United States does not mean that it should be wrong and not allowed. Every individual needs to have the same rights as the next. With out this idea of equality we are essentially taking a step back. Gay marriage is a new idea that is testing the limits of our society. But as history shows testing these limits and making changes is what end time leads to a better society for us all.