 "Photo: Photo Courtesy of inquisitr.com")
Last week, the New York State Senate rejected a bill that would have allowed gay couples to wed. The 38 to 24 vote defeating the bill was a blow not only to supporters of same sex marriage, but to the fundamental constitutional right of equal protection under the law.
Whether or not same-sex couples can marry is a question with huge practical significance because over 1,000 rights are dependent on marital status. Same-sex couples now receive fewer social benefits and pay more for health insurance than heterosexual married couples.
According to an Oct. 3 New York Times “Your Money” column titled “The High Price of Being a Gay Couple,” middle-class gay couples with a combined yearly income of $140,000 are forced to pay an additional $41,000 to $468,000 more over a lifetime. Of that additional cost, $29,000 to $212,000 of that cost is from health care since most major employers deny health insurance coverage for same-sex partners. Most employers also deny survivor pension benefits to a same-sex spouse. It is unfair to deny same-sex couples these benefits.
Some opponents of same-sex marriage argue that it will destroy marriage. However, the real blame for the disintegration of marriage is no-fault divorce, not same-sex marriage. Other opponents of same-sex marriage rely on the argument of “non-endorsement.” According to this argument, in a society that is deeply divided over the morality of same-sex marriage, it would be inappropriate for the government to recognize same-sex marriage because then it would be endorsing one view of morality over the other.
The faulty logic of the non-endorsement argument is blatant. This logic would hold that the government’s repeal of Prohibition in 1933 should be considered an endorsement of drinking and alcoholism, which it clearly wasn’t. Furthermore, one could reject the non-endorsement argument on the grounds that allowing gay marriage isn’t an endorsement of gay marriage itself, rather it is an endorsement of equal protection under the law.
Permitting same-sex marriage is consistent with the 1967 Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia, which held that a Virginian law prohibiting marriage between heterosexuals of different races was unconstitutional. In Loving, the Court ruled that, “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man,” that is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Denying this fundamental freedom on an unsupportable basis as the racial classifications is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.
To deny the freedom to marry on the basis of gender classifications is likewise a denial of due process and equal protection under the law. Allowing same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the morality of the practice. Rather, it is the rational outcome of applying secular principles of law. Prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying does not make any rational sense because the government allows same-sex couples to adopt children. Since same-sex couples are denied medical visitation rights, if their adopted child suffered a medical emergency they would be unable to visit him or her, possibly endangering the child since there would be no parent present to consent to certain medical treatments. While it is true that being granted one right (the right to adopt children) doesn’t compel the government to grant another right (the right to marry), adoption is not the only way that same sex couples can have children. Lesbians can have their own children through in vitro fertilization.
Since 2003, seven states have legalized same-sex marriage, but two of them–California last year and Maine last month–have already gotten rid of same-sex marriage. The repeals in California and Maine, like the recent defeat in New York, were votes for discrimination, not morality.
2 comments