John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and Same-Sex Marriage Legalization
There has been a significant amount of controversy in the past few years leading up to the current regarding the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States. In the recent election, many states have voted in favor of the legalization of same-sex marriage. However, there has been little movement towards legalization on the federal level. Earlier this year, President Obama made the statement supporting the idea that same-sex marriage should be legal. Thus, making a statement on one of the most vexed, and politically charged social issues being faced in the United States presently. Obama made this statement knowing that in a few months he would be announcing his campaign for reelection, and thus received fierce opposition from many groups as well as his Republican opponent in his race for reelection.
My personal stance on this issue is that without a doubt, same-sex marriage should be legalized. In the process of legalization, it would give every American citizen regardless of sexual orientation the ability to marry and their union to be recognized on the federal level. Many individuals might argue that this would degrade the sanctity of marriage, but with the percentage of marriages ending in divorce or otherwise that argument can hardly be supported. Another opposition that is brought up repeatedly is that the Bible and other religious scriptures do not speak in support of same-sex marriage and thus deeming it immoral. In response to this argument, I would reference Thomas Jefferson and his statement, “ wall of separation between church and state.” In accordance with the rights set by the Amendments of the Constitution, it allows individuals to practice religion freely without fear of persecution, and does not allow the government to enforce any laws regarding religious practices. Therefore, I do not believe that legislature regarding same-sex marriage should be influenced by religious writings.
Many of the issues regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage can be refuted by the beliefs and writings of John Stuart Mill, particularly his essay On Liberty. In this essay Mill brought about the importance of freedom of speech, and the right to privacy and their roles in protection from the tyranny of the majority opinions. The controversy regarding the evolution of the legalization of same-sex marriage can be supported by a variety of statements that Mill made within On Liberty. Every individual is entitled to their opinions and the expression of these opinions, however whether or not the speech is truthful plays into whether it contributes to the issue, or discredits the individual and their statements. Mill consistently fears the tyranny of the majority, and thus is in support of free speech for all. The ability of the individual to speak freely in opposition to the majority allows the minority point of view to be heard. This can be related to the fight for marriage equality, in that the minority voices of those in support of same-sex marriage have spoken up and gained the attention of the majority, this brings the issue at hand into the mainstream view. This also allows the false statements put forth by the majority to be discredited furthering the support for same-sex marriages among those that were once opposed because of false information.
Another argument that Mill introduces that could be used in support of same-sex marriage is the right to privacy. Within Mill’s argument, he states that Individuality is a necessary condition for human happiness. This means that regardless of sexual orientation, an individual should be able to pursue love interests that they deem as part of themselves, and allow for that person to exert their own individuality in whatever way they see fit. In relation to same-sex marriage, limiting this expression of individuality, and prohibiting an individual to enter into a marriage with one that they feel is right would mean that the individual would not be happy, thus violating the individual’s right to privacy as defined by Mill. Governmental involvement also has a profound effect on the lives of individuals and typically does significantly more harm than good. This can be illustrated by governmental policies such as DADT (“Don’t ask, don’t tell”). This limited the expression of a person’s individuality, which in turn violates their right to privacy as mill defined. This policy was later repealed and allowed the individual to freely own their individuality without fear of persecution from the government or peers.
One of the most compelling statements put forth by Mill in his discussion of privacy, is his Harm Principle. This principle states that government has no right to intervene in the private life of individuals unless they are likely to do harm to others. Within this Harm Principle, it explicitly states that the banning of victimless crimes is prohibited. One of these victimless crimes as defined by Mill is a homosexual act. Same-sex marriage poses no threat of harm to the citizens; therefore the government according to Mill should have no role in the banning of same-sex marriage. Despite this belief, governmental policies such as DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), which strictly defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States still exist to this day. In Mill’s defense DOMA has been deemed unconstitutional in many federal courts, once again supporting the belief of the Harm Principle and that the government should not interfere in victimless crimes.
I have showed my personal support for the legalization of same-sex marriage at the federal level. While there seems to be more support from the majority opinion than there once was, it is only the beginning. Mill brings about many arguments within his essay On Liberty that would be instrumental to the legalization of same-sex marriages. I mentioned specifically his ideas regarding free speech, and the individual’s right to privacy and their role in avoiding the tyranny of the majority. Both of these factors work to help the voices of the minority to be heard, and the false accusations by the majority to be discredited, leading the more widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage legalization in the United States and elsewhere in the world.