Justice For All?

On May 17th, 2004 Marcia Hams and Susan Shepard filed for marriage at Cambridge Massachusetts town hall. As it stands, Massachusetts is the only state in the United States where gay marriage is legal, but why is that? There are numerous arguments against gay marriage. Some of the most popular arguments are that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, same sex marriages are not a good environment in which to raise children, gay marriage would threaten the institution of marriage itself, same sex marriage would force churches to marry gay couples when they are morally against it, and that marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. Unfortunately for opponents to gay marriage, these arguments just don't float.

Probably the most often heard argument against gay marriage is that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Yet it is also probably the weakest. Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The married? The marriable? Isn't that like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money stored in the vaults? Shouldn't justice demand that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, trite declarations, with no real moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

One of the more passionate arguments against same sex marriage is that gay marriages aren't a good environment to raise children. It's an interesting one, considering who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought, much less a protest. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, whether adopted, through surregat mothers or sperm donors, and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. 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. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love and commitment of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.

The argument that the President is so fond of using is that gay marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. But this is just contradictory. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical. If gay people are allowed to marry, they would no longer be encouraged to take part in sham marriages. Allowing gay marriage would reduce the number of straight marriages that end up in divorce court.

An argument that is generally advanced by churches that oppose gay marriage is that it would force churches to marry gay