Gay marriage in the US

ConstitutionalityThe 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal protection under the law. This means that the law must extend the same legal benefits to everyone. If marriage is a right, it must be extended to everyone. This means that if straight people can get married, so can gay people.Con and I both agree marriage is a basic human right. If that is the case, then banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. DOMACon has deceived both me and our readers. Check Con’s sources, this is what you’ll find: DOMA is actually an Act passed by Congress, not a “constitutional amendment.” At this point, we can already dismiss Con’s argument: DOMA is a Federal Act, and Con has already conceded that marriage is a State concern, not a Federal one. DOMA has also been ruled unconstitutional by: Smelt v. County of Orange, Gil v. Office of Personnel Management, Windsor v. United States, Cozen O’Connor v. Tobits. [9] The list goes on.President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder both declared DOMA unconstitutional. And January this year, the Department of Justice (the only institution that can legally defend DOMA) also decreed DOMA unconstitutional. [10]It is a completely negated Act. Definition of MarriageCon’s entire argument rests on how marriage is defined. Two things worth considering: 1) definitions change; 2) the question of whether we should change the traditional man-woman definition is precisely what we are debating. Anytime Con invokes the man-woman definition as an end in itself, Con is using circular reasoning that also begs the very question this debate is about. Consider this: the institution of marriage has undergone more radical change than allowing same-sex marriage. For example, no-fault divorce, which allows divorce without showing of wrong-doing or without need of any proceedings at all. Or women’s equality, which destabilized traditional gender-roles in marriage. In comparison to either of these, gay marriages will represent a minor change, the addition of maybe 2% in the number of married couples. Also, notice that we now have full same-sex marriage in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Portugal, Mexico City, South Africa, Alagoas, and Sweden.Not only can definitions change, according to these countries, it already has.Child-rearingCon argues that “marriage” is about child-rearing. Although I think it’s about much more than that – encouraging traditional values and loving relationships, and signaling this to friends – I do agree with Con that child-raising is a central part of marriage. For decades, gay families have been functioning as real families, raising children. Currently, over one million children are raised in same-sex households. Con admits this point, stating that “22% of gay men has kid living with them, and 33% for lesbians.”Marriage offers both same-sex couples and their children irreplaceable legal, care-giving, and social benefits. Besides the obvious legal benefits, children are more secure in households where their parents are united in marriage. It would be wrong to deny the children of gay parents the same benefits that the children of straight parents have. Con consistently talks about gay marriage as an abstraction (for example, the whole man-woman definition argument), but gay families are real people with real children and real problems. I really hope it is clear to Con and readers that gay families are a reality. I think as soon as gay marriage is understood as a real-world issue and not some theoretical one, it becomes clear that these children deserve the benefits of married parents. When Con denies same-sex marriage, Con also deprives their children.Slippery SlopeThere is no evidence that gay marriage leads to a slippery slope. If anything, the reverse: eighteen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia, there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy, and more respect for monogamy. [11] So far there is no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or as Rick Santorum once said, to man-on-dog unionsThe evidence so far makes any claim about doomsday scenarios very hard to credit. Also, ask yourself which is more likely: that the 0.5% of openly non-monogamous gay couples will exert enough pressure to change the morals of the 99.5? Or that the 99.5% will put tremendous social pressure on the 0.5%? The numbers come from Con's sources.Another thing to considerTo the polygamist we would say, “Pick a partner and get married. It’s better for you, your kids, and the rest of us if you do.” We wouldn’t say, “Your multiple-partner past disqualifies you from marriage.” Yet when gay couples want to get married, society tells them, “There’s nothing for you. Not multiple partners. Not even one partner. And your kids? They’re irrelevant.” I doubt any traditionalist conservative would would truly accept that. Gays want to marry, gays value marriage, they want to accept traditional values.Think about it: We let polygamists get married. Why not gays? EconomyCon’s economic analysis is deeply flawed. First, notice that Con’s sources are not about gay marriages, they are about unmarried same-sex couples. Somewhat ironically, the supposed costs of same-sex marriage that Con is reporting are actually the costs of not legalizing same-sex marriage. Here’s what really happens. Millions saved in healthcare because businesses extend health benefits to spouses of their married gay employees. Weddings, wedding-based tourism, marriage license and ceremony fees, and increases in income taxes, all generate tax revenue far outweighing the economic costs.Take a look at the CBO report again: billions of dollars saved by legalizing gay marriage. ConclusionGay marriage may be new to law but gay “marriage” is not new to life. Gay families have been living around us for decades, raising children without the legal or social benefits of marriage. By denying same-sex marriage, we are denying the rights of not only same-sex couples but of their children.My argument is simple. Gay people exist. They are not the top-down creations of government bureaucrats or radical visionaries. They are bottom-up facts of life.So: given that gay people exist and are not going to be eliminated, the question now is, “What is to be done with them?” Is it better for society and for traditional values that they be pushed aside, marginalized and ostracized, made to feel alien to traditional values and institutions? Or is it better for society and for traditionalists that they be included in the fabric of American life, including in the most important social institution we have for encouraging, recognizing, and reinforcing loving relationships? And now: extend those same questions to the children of gay people. Seriously. Is it better for our society and for traditional values that the children of gay people are pushed aside, marginalized and ostracized, and made to feel alien to traditional values and institutions? Or is it better for society and traditionalists that these children be included in the fabric of American life, including the most important social institution we have for encouraging, recognizing, and reinforcing loving relationships? I really hope that you, Con, and that you, my reader, seriously consider these questions. Not only for the sake of gay people, but for the sake of their children. For the sake of children who never chose to have gay parents, but who are nonetheless being denied not only the legal benefits of marriage, but are also being denied access to one of the most rich cultural institutions our society has to offer.[9] http://www.religioustolerance.org...[10] http://www.metro.us...[11] http://kickingalion.wordpress.com...;