Gay Marriage
Tina M. Keena
SOC 120: Introductions to Ethics & Social Responsibility
Instructor: Daniel Beteta
August 31, 2012

Gay Marriage
“The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago. Since then, a central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States understands that the existence of human rights helps secure the peace, deter aggression, promote the rule of law, combat crime and corruption, strengthen democracies, and prevent humanitarian crises” (Bureau of Public Affairs). With this said and published why is there so much debate and argument over the rights of those in the Gay and Lesbian community being allowed to marry each other? The Bible does indicate that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the Bible was written by man as an interpretation of God’s word. This Country with many others has overcome so many obstacles within the times. Banishment of slavery, equal rights to women, and acceptance of interracial marriages has become respected and acceptable. If all of this can come full circle to where it is acceptable, the rights of those who are gay should also be accepted. Equal rights to all human beings regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation should be recognized.
In 1967 there was much controversy over the interracial marriage of an African American woman and a Caucasian man. This prompted a court action that was well known as “Loving v. Virginia”. Mildred Loving and Richard loving married in Washington D.C. in 1958 and both at the time were residents of the State of Virginia. At the time Washington D.C. allowed interracial marriages where Virginia did not. When the couple returned the were arrested because they violated the “statutory legislation prohibiting the marriage of individuals of differing races or ethnicity” (Loving v. Virginia). With the outcome of this case, it opened the door for many gay and lesbian couples to pursuit the freedom that they have as being able to “enjoy this vital personal right” (Lahey & Alderson, 2004). The most powerful organization that is involved in the Same-sex marriage debate is the Christian Coalition, who bases their opposition on religious and scriptural grounds. The Roman Catholic position states that marriage is based between a man and a woman for mutual love and support and for the procreation and the education of children. Furthermore they argue that “the institution of marriage has a very important relationship to the continuation of the human race, to the total development of the human person, and to the dignity, stability, peace, and prosperity of the family and of society” (Sullivan, 1997). The Hebrew Bible has done more to civilize the world than any other book in history. “It is the Hebrew Bible that gave humanity such ideas as a universal, moral, loving God”. It lists homosexuality and child sacrifice in the list of “abominations” that are practiced by the people. The belief that homosexuality denies life, is also the belief that “it denies God’s expressed desire that men and women cohabitate”. It has been recognized that even though the Church does have its strict views regarding same sex marriage, in all actuality, the “Church”, does not marry two people. Marriage is two people marrying each other. Also it is the State that defines the legality of marriage (Sullivan, 1997). Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Massachusetts adopted their own laws that would recognize that gays and lesbians have the right to enter into a civil marriage over the past decade. The Supreme Court issued many important rulings on issues of marriage and homosexuality. The High Court upheld sexual privacy rights for gay and lesbians in 2003, this ruling was criticized as paving the way for Civil marriages to be recognized. Marriage is known to be one “of the civil rights of man”, that is important to the existence and survival. “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classification embodied in these statues, classifications, directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Sullivan, 1997). The 14th Amendment does state “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (NARA, 1998). Utilitarianism poses its ideas around what will be the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Many are more to look at things from this theory it provides people to live moral lives other than what the Bible dictates. Utilitarian philosophy will stand strong is stating that society does not have the right to “proscribe homosexual genital relations between consenting adults and perhaps more so between homosexual person in monogamous homosexual relationships” (Jacobs, 2012). More so saying that with the homosexual being able to find happiness and be happy does not decrease the happiness of those around them (Jacobs, 2012). Deontological liberals believe that an “innocent person-that is, someone who has not violated another’s rights to life or property-never deserves to be punished by having her rights violated” (Harris, 2006). With that quote, then who has the right to violate the right of the 14th amendment to those that wish to find happiness by choosing a partner of the same sex? This statement has to me to believe that homosexual marriages should have the same rights and benefits as those who are heterosexual. However, deontological theories do not so much have a way to resolve the debates or conflicts between issues. Some may refer to this as choosing the “lesser of two evils”. The dictionary defines deontology as an “ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether the actions itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action” (Your dictionary, 2012). My question is what rules? Who determines really what is right and what is wrong? Virtue Ethics “ promotes a particular kind of person—a virtuous or noble person—who provides a role model for those who wishes to be moral. Determining what the specific virtues are, and what the appropriate balance among those virtues should be, can be difficult. For this reason, some have suggested that virtue ethics is really complementary to other ethical theories so that we may analyze ethical problems from the perspective of another ethical theory, but if done correctly, what will emerge is a virtuous person.” (Mosser, K, 2010) As previously discussed there are those that will define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. When in all actuality, the purpose of marriage is to show the mutual love and desire to be in a committed relationship. Also, that marriage and uniting a man and a woman is so that the creation of man by bearing children may continue on the existence of man. However, even within a homosexual union, there are options available for raising a family. With today’s society, we have adoption, foster care and even donors who will provide the “necessary elements” to conceive a child as well as the “equipment” to bear a child into this world. Critics may argue that the gay couple would have to “go outside of themselves to create a child, and there is a separations between the loving union of the couple and the creation of children” (Cortes, 2003). America protects the rights of all citizens. Some may think that marriage is not to be equal to “freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly” (Cortes, 2003). There are many who state that marriage should be available to all adults regardless of race, religion or gender. Those against the thought of gay marriage will always have their opinions as to what is right and wrong. In all actuality, does the Government have the right to dictate as to what a person is allowed to do just because their sexual orientation is different than what is considered normal? The constitution is used to protect the American population and provides guidelines for a peaceful way of life without strong dictation. This was thought up by man, put on paper by man and put in action by man. Those that fight the religious part of this debate will argue that the Bible is strict to its words on marriage being between a man and a woman. I have said it earlier that in my opinion, the Bible is the word of God that was interpreted by man. When looking at the religious side of this debate, if God is all forgiving and acceptable, then why would He not allow for all of His “children” to be happy. All human beings should have the rights of others. Just as there has been past changes to allow women to vote and work, for the end of slavery, the marriage of interracial couples. Changes need to be put in place to give all those the same equal rights and benefits as the other. I stand strong to my statement that equal rights to all human beings regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation should be recognized.

References
(Bureau of Public Affairs) Bureau of Public Affairs. (n.d.) Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/drl/hr/index.htm
(Cortes, 2003) Cortes, D. (2003). Virtue in Action. The Politics and Ethics of Gay Marriage. Retrieved from http://www.virtueinactions/com/2004/Gay_marriage.pdf
(Harris, 2006) Harris,A. (2006, January). The libertarian option. Retrieved from http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/1/10/the-libertarian-option-the-recent- Controversy/
(Jacobs, 2012) Jacobs, R. (2012. Utilitarianism. Retrieved from http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/
(Lahey & Alderson, 2004) Lahey, K., & Alderson, K. (2004). Same-Sex Marriage, The Personal and the Political. Toronto, Canada: Insomniac Press.
(Loving v. Virginia) Loving v. Virginia (n.d.). Retrieved from http://cases.laws.com/loving-v-virginia.
(Mosser, K, 2010) Mosser, K. (2010) Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu

(NARA, 1998) NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) (1998). 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=43
(Sullivan, 1997) Sullivan, A. (1997). Same-sex marriage: pro and con. New York: Vintage Books.
(Your dictionary, 2012) Your dictionary. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.yourdictionary.com/deontology