4 of 51

Write now Article Tools

Most will remember George W. Bush's ban-gay-marriage charade, in 2006; he called for the amendment of our Constitution to ban gay marriage. Likely nothing more than a very clever diversion, the amendment was rejected later that year. Many of those against gay marriage argue that it's a "slippery slope" which would invite bestiality, polygamy and pedophilia into the realm of marriage. Others argue that marriage is meant to promote natural reproduction, and some also claim gay marriage would somehow tarnish the sanctity of this beloved institution. Well, this is all nonsense.

First, here is an excerpt from the 14th Amendment of our Constitution:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

As shown above, we see that no State is to deny equal protection of the laws for anyone. This is simply not so if only heterosexual couples gain the legal benefits of marriage. To keep things simple, I won't go into much detail on what these benefits of marriage are, but I'll name just a few:

- Medical Decision
- Inheritance
- Visitation Rights
- Burial Decision
- Divorce Protections

Obviously, if gay marriage is not allowed, gay couples cannot enjoy many legal benefits that heterosexuals do. This is typically where the "slippery slope" argument comes into play, but I'll tell you why that argument just doesn't fly.

Bestiality (man and animal marriage)

Gays are two people, not two species. Animals aren't protected by laws as people are. It's a silly juxtaposition you could just as well argue that if a man and woman can marry, so can a person and his/her animal. Same difference, really.

Polygamy (multiple partners)

Aside from the obvious problems that would arise if there were more than one person trying to claim rights meant for two people, homosexual unions would not require more than two people to marry. As with the man marrying animal argument, polygamy just isn't relevant.

Pedophilia

Another pointless comparison; homosexual unions would not require anyone under legal age to marry.

Moving on, we have the natural procreation argument. I won't waste too much time on this one. Here's a simple question:

Are heterosexuals required to procreate in order to be married?

...and the answer is: No.

Then you have the sanctity argument. Would Bob and Joe's marriage really make you value your heterosexual marriage any less? If so, should you even be married?

...and the answer is: Probably not.

As far as the religious aspect of that argument is concerned, religion has no place in law anyway. Besides, the 1st Amendment says the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

There are religions that allow gay marriage. Would the people be free to exercise them?

...and the answer is: Yes, according to the 1st Amendment.

Finally, let's not forget the people that simply feel they as a majority should determine what can and cannot be done, for whatever reason. Let the states decide for themselves, is what some say. Although this is probably the easiest solution, it's not necessarily the best. The majority doesn't always do what's right. Besides, what does a straight person care if gay marriage is allowed in their state? Homosexuality isn't going to go on the rise if it's allowed, trust me. It's not like gay marriage would actually change someone's heterosexual life - gay people can disgust homophobes out of wedlock, too...

Learn more about this author, James D. Bentham.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about The case for gay marriage?
We want to hear your view. Write now!