Shortly after the recent ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to legalize same-sex marriages, the state legislature unsuccessfully attempted to produce a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. The Massachusetts legislature is not alone in its fight against same-sex marriages, as 38 states currently have laws forbidding the recognition of such unions.
I commend the court's decision as a most advanced and farsighted one. It is a progressive decision that rightly ignores the fundamentally flawed arguments against same-sex marriages.
One such argument, often made by President Bush, is that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. While marriage has always been between a man and a woman, the nature, purpose and the institution itself has been defined and redefined over the course of history. Marriage is socially constructed according to cultural realities. For instance, there are still countries where two individuals are destined for marriage by their parents at the time of their birth and some other cultures make women akin to being "servants" of their husbands. These notions have fortunately subsided in much of the western world. This is due in large part to those pioneers who, throughout the years, have continuously redefined marriage in order to accentuate its most important aspects: love and the desire to create a family. Thus, the institution of marriage must also be redefined today to incorporate the cultural reality of same-sex unions.
The "sacred" part of the above statement is also disputable. As evidenced by the less than 50 percent success rate of marriages in America, the countless number of marriage reality TV shows and the many politicians and professional athletes who marry and then cheat on their wives, marriage is hardly a sacred institution anymore. However, those who wish to marry because they believe in the sanctity of marriage, whether they be of the same sex or different, should be allowed to do so.
David Brooks wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece last year, "marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency the culture of contingency means that the marriage bond, which is supposed to be a sacred vow till death do us part, is now likely to be seen as an easily canceled contract." He went on to say that not allowing gay marriage "means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations is an abomination."
Another argument often made is that marriage is necessary for procreation and the continuation of the species; therefore, same-sex marriages threaten the institution of family -- the core of our society. Should society then prevent those heterosexuals who do not wish to or who cannot procreate from marrying? Arguments based on reproduction incorrectly make the purpose of marriage that of reproduction. As evidenced by the number of children born out of wedlock today, the purpose of marriage is clearly not that of reproduction. This does not mean, however, that same-sex couples can't adopt -- or, for women, take part in technological advancements such as artificial insemination.
According to polls, 61 percent of Americans do not agree with same-sex marriages for personal, moral or religious beliefs. It is often argued that law-making institutions should reflect majority opinion. Thus, by writing a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, state and federal legislatures hope to make the constitution a reflection of majority opinion. The purpose of the constitution is to protect the minority against the majority. In this way, the constitution guarantees equal rights to the minority regardless of whether the majority approves. This has been the proper function of the constitution throughout history.
There has never been an amendment to the constitution limiting or restraining individual freedoms, rather, amendments have sought to broaden the freedoms of individuals. In this way, attempts by the Massachusetts legislature and possibly the federal legislature to write constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage, are disturbing because they represent a spirit of anti-progressiveness that runs counter to the intent of the constitution.
For some, the answer to the question of gay marriage is civil unions. Civil unions grant same-sex couples most of the rights of state civil marriages but provide none of the federal benefits of marriage such as social security. Civil unions suggest that homosexuals are second-class citizens. It forces them to wear the badge of inferiority often assigned to those who are forced to accept "separate, but equal." History dictates that this doctrine does not work, as separate almost always means unequal.
Ultimately, same-sex marriage is inevitable. History dictates that those who are denied "inalienable rights" eventually gain them through unyielding determination. I guess all we have to do is wait, but I caution against such inaction by reminding society of the following words from Dr. Marin Luther King: "For years now I have heard the word 'wait!' This 'wait' has almost always meant 'never.' We must come to see that justice too long delayed is justice denied."
The time is now.
