|
7. After reading the following selection, write an argumentative passage drawing one of these conclusions:
(1) The government should recognize same-sex marriages. (2) The government should not recognize same-sex marriages. (3) The refusal of one state to recognize a same-sex marriage legally performed in another state is unconstitutional. (4) The refusal of one state to recognize a same-sex marriage legally performed in another state is not necessarily unconstitutional.
Same-Sex Marriage: Prohibiting Homosexual Union Serves No Useful Social Purpose by Benita Berkson and Ross Porter Most Americans, gay or nongay, have not yet had to give real thought to the validity of same-sex couples' marriages, or of what the freedom to marry really means. Of course the reaction of some moral crusaders is sadly obvious, but many thoughtful and fair-minded people will, if given the chance, see the fairness and rightness of respecting family relationships and committed, caring unions. The respected Economist news magazine argued recently in favor of the gay/lesbian freedom to marry, stating that it is in society's best interest to encourage love and the marital commitments that go with it in every place where this can be encouraged. To this reasonable view, we add a question worth pondering: Where in the world is there enough love? Same-sex marriage, where the union between individuals is celebrated as a mutual commitment, is an everyday fact in literally millions of households across the country today. For our society and government to recognize this fact by treating these marriages for what they are is not a great leap, but rather a baby step on the road to truth and justice. The simple fact is that countless homosexual couples, especially lesbian ones, have shown that they are as capable of fidelity, responsibility and devotion as are heterosexual couples. Extending the freedom to marry could, in the words of The Economist, "reaffirm society's hope that people of all kinds settle down into stable unions." Contrast this with the words of a leader of the Christian Action Network of Virginia, who recently suggested in this newspaper that the government's interest in marriage is strictly for the purpose of procreation. This assertion is incorrect. Legally speaking, the courts generally recognize love, not childbearing, as the real reason for marriage. The outstanding proof of this fact is the judicial permission which guarantees married couples the right to birth control. While reasonable people can see that the state does not support marriage exclusively for the purpose of procreation, they also recognize the great importance that children play in marriages and families. If the right were as concerned about children as their anti-gay arguments claim, how would they answer for the harm being done by the prohibition of same-sex marriage to some 8 million to 10 million children who are living today in 3 million gay- or lesbian-headed households? These millions of children (their number was estimated by a 1988 American Bar Association study) deserve to be treated equally with children raised in other circumstances. Instead, these children are often taunted at school or forced to hide the fact their parents are homosexual. Most same-sex couples already share many of the same challenges as married couples. Despite taking responsibility for their partners' well-being, both economically and emotionally, they are legally treated as nothing more than roommates. Locking in this status by prohibiting marriage serves no social interest except that of bigotry. To attempt to outlaw such unions before the public — all of us — has a chance to sincerely evaluate the question is a stealth strategy designed to fix into law the prejudices of some that many citizens, both gay and nongay, do not accept. The Utah, South Dakota and Alaska state governments already have taken up these measures. Utah passed the prohibition and Alaska's is pending, but in South Dakota, this restriction was not adopted. Are the people of South Dakota more tolerant than we in California? Or do they want to give the issue of same-sex marriage a fair hearing before attempting to ban it? Absent a compelling reason, governments should not discriminate between classes of citizens. As recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some American states could not wed. Only a crude racist would defend such a rule now. Even granting that the case of homosexuals is more complex that the case of miscegenation, the state should presume against discriminating — especially when handing out something as important as a marriage license. If marriage is to fulfill the aspirations society holds for it, then it must be defined by the commitment of people to each other for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health — and not by the people it excludes. |