Gay marriage and civil unions have been popping up a lot in the news lately. Just recently, both Iowa and Vermont ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny the right to marry to same-sex couples. On the other side of the coin, Hawaii legislators deadlocked on a bill that would grant same-sex couples the right to civil unions a few weeks ago. Looking back on the history of such legislations, it is almost as if America is playing seesaw with the issue of gay marriage, with those opposed to the measures easily outweighing the proponents. Interestingly enough, when viewing the failed civil-union-based Hawaii House Bill 444, it is easy to forget that the gay marriage legislation seesaw started with Hawaii in the 1990s.

In May 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state could not deny same-sex couples the right to marry unless it found a “compelling reason” to do so. The Supreme Court then sent the issue back to the legislators to figure it out. Four years later, in 1997, Hawaii was poised to become the first state in America to allow same-sex marriage when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state did not present adequate justification to deny same-sex marriages. However, a year later, in November of 1998, Hawaii voters approved Constitutional Amendment 2 which gave Hawaii legislators the power to “reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” Sadly, rather than being the first state to allow same-sex marriage, Hawaii became the first state (along with Alaska) to have a “defense of marriage” amendment to its constitution.

The “defense of marriage” amendments of Hawaii and Alaska opened the door to many more to come. Just two years later, Nebraska voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and in 2002, Nevada voters followed suite. Now, 11 years after the first same-sex marriage amendment, a total of 41 states have laws written into their constitution that strictly prohibit gay marriages. Arizona is, to date, the “only state that has ever defeated a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman (2006), but subsequently passed one in 2008.” The constitutional amendments, for the most part, were approved via popular votes as it happened in both Hawaii and Alaska.

Many citizens would say that big issues like gay marriage should be brought up to a popular vote and that “the people” should be the ones that make the final decision. The thinking, apparently, is that people know what’s best for themselves and for the country. The problem with this kind of thinking, however, is that historically the general public has not made the right decisions when it comes to civil rights. It’s safe to assume that if it were left up to the people, interracial marriage may still be illegal and there would probably still be slavery in the United States. When civil rights are left up the general public, the mob mentality takes over, and progression no longer becomes possible.

From the standpoint of civil rights, the simple fact is this: the majority should never be allowed to vote on the rights of the minority. By the very act of being the minority, minority groups do not have enough numbers to out-voice the majority. If you look at the statistics regarding homosexuality in the United States, it is estimated that around ten percent of the population is gay, making them a huge minority. So, when it comes to popular votes, that ten percent of the population is left to sway the minds of the other ninety percent and convince them that that they do, in fact, deserve the same rights as everyone else. Trying to convince so many people is an almost impossible feat, as can be seen by the number of states that now have amendments to their constitution banning same-sex marriage.

Not all states have taken the dark path in relation to civil rights – there are four states in America where same-sex marriage is legal: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. [Note: Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, and New Hampshire allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions as well, which is similar, but not equal to, full marriage.] Same-sex marriages have been performed in Massachusetts since May 2004 and in Connecticut since November 2008. Same-sex marriages will begin in Iowa come the end of April this year, and in Vermont by September. An interesting fact to keep in mind is that with each state that allows same-sex marriage, public opinion towards same-sex marriage improves. The mob mentality, it seems, works both ways. Despite the glimmering ray of hope created by the few states that allow same-sex marriage, there is still a ton of work to be done to change the minds of the masses. The only real way that people will understand that same-sex marriage is not the end of society is for their faulty arguments to be teared down in front of them.

A very common argument made against same-sex marriage is that same-sex marriage will harm the “sanctity” of marriage and the institution of marriage as a whole. The main problem with this argument is the idea of marriage being sacred. With fifty percent of all marriages ending in divorce (some within mere days), it is clear that not many believe that marriage is some kind of sacred institution that is even worth protecting from the big bad homosexuals. Same-sex marriage cannot harm the sanctity of marriage if such a notion doesn’t even exist, and I’d be willing to argue that same-sex marriage will actually help the institution of marriage by lowering the divorce rate in the country. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, then the stigma regarding homosexuality will diminish, lessening the amount of gay people hiding their sexuality, lessening the amount of men and women forcing themselves into marriage with someone they are not really attracted to, lessening the amount of divorces taking place when said homosexuals finally give up trying to be something they are not. If, in this way, less marriages are ending in divorce, could it not be said that same-sex marriage would be helping the institution of marriage?

Another major argument against same-sex marriage takes the whole “sanctity” argument a step further by drawing upon the religious nature of marriages. Marriage is fundamentally religious, the argument goes, so allowing gay marriages goes against what religion says. The religious argument for marriage is faulty on several levels. First, when marriage began, it was not done for religious purposes. Marriages were first performed as business transactions, not religious ones; they were used to form lasting bonds between families or even whole tribes. Marriage did not begin as a religious institution, and even today, heterosexual couples can get civil marriages without any input from religion. Secondly, arguing for marriage to be reserved between a man and a woman on religious grounds is in direct opposition of the Bill of Rights and the separation of church and state. While churches should be able to decide whether or not they perform religious ceremonies for marriage, denying same-sex couples the right to have civil marriages (just like heterosexual couples can) based on religious arguments is unconstitutional. Thirdly, different religions have different views on homosexual unions and how they relate to marriage. There is no universal religion that has a say on what is the right path for marriage to take.

A powerful argument often used to push for “traditional” marriage deals with children. The premise is twofold: first, marriage is for procreation and the continuation of the species; and second, same-sex married couples cannot provide the optimum environment for raising children (i.e. a mother and a father figure). The idea that the human race needs any help with survival is absolutely ridiculous. The population of our species is closing in on seven billion – we simply do not need an institution devoted to the continuation of our species. Also, if marriage is just for procreation, then one could argue that infertile couples and those not intending to have children should not be allowed to get married either. In response to the second half of the argument: single mothers and single fathers can only provide half of the equation as well, should their children be taken away? Also, research shows that same-sex parents perform just as well (if not better) as heterosexuals when it comes to raising children.

So what’s the big deal? How is it that so many people do not want same-sex marriage legalized when there are so few reasons against it that actually make sense (if any)? The simple answer is bigotry and fear. The general public does not like homosexuals. The idea of two men lying with each other or two women lying with each other disgusts and confuses people. Many cannot understand homosexuality, and as is often the case, because they do not understand homosexuality, there is an innate fear of it. With ten percent of the population being gay and more and more of those people being open about their sexuality, one is hard-pressed to not have some kind of relation to a gay person, whether that relation be family or friendship-based. Despite knowing gay people, the average person still has a hard time coming to grips with seeing homosexuals as equal and deserving of equal rights. When it comes to people that are different, historically the average person has felt that some things need to be reserved to just themselves, that thing being marriage in this case. The majority needs to see that homosexuals are not really different, just as African Americans and women are no longer seen as being different and deserving of less rights. Many years from now when homosexuals have finally won their equal rights, people will look back and wonder why same-sex marriage was ever even an issue.

Joseph Castro - Rainbow Connection Staff Writer