Looking back at the social development of our country you might think we have made a lot of progress. There is no slavery, laws are in place to protect minorities in the workplace, and all adults of US citizenship have the right to vote. After the Declaration of Independence was signed and “all men” were created equal, it seemed the separation of the federal government and the states had an easy enough time dissolving this ideal utopia. One of the most important qualities of our Nation is the ability to vote for who makes decisions for you. However, after declaring independence, only white men that owned property had the right to vote. Then it seemed our social equality declined when in 1790, the Naturalization Act barred Asian Americans from voting. In 1812, the true nature of politics as a means of reshaping the federal government that has already been established was born when a Massachusetts governor redrew district lines to favor Republican-dominated areas (something that happens still today). It wasn’t until 1869 when the Fifteenth Amendment gave African Americans the right to vote. It was still a very shaky ride, with different states introducing different legislature that kept mostly ethnic minorities from being able to vote. Women were finally given the right to vote in 1920, but it wasn’t until 1964 when a Civil Rights Act was passed making it illegal to discriminate on voting rights. It wasn’t until 1971 when all persons over the age of 18 were allowed to vote. You can find the very confusing and fact filed timeline of voters rights here:
The point of outlining the right to vote from the time our country was formed, is that it took 195 years in order to give all adult citizens of the US the right to vote. Under a nation that was supposedly founded for all men to be equal, this timeline of voter rights seems quite unproductive and unconstitutional.
This article, however, is not about voter rights. I simply outline the lack of recognition of all men being seen as equal in our nation by showing how long it took to finally recognize one of the basic rights of our nation allowable to all adult citizens. Now we look back and find it silly that most people did not have the right to vote, or have the right to be free men, or have the right to work, or have the right to be recognized as a married couple… OK, so we are still struggling with that last one. This leads me to the main topic of discussion: Why can we accept our shortcomings in our society when it comes to exclusion of rights on a basis of race, sex and religion, yet we still cannot allow two people to marry based on the fact that a marriage is a religious union between and man and a wife? The logic behind why gay couples should have the right to marry is evidently astounding, while the logic behind why they shouldn’t have that right is incredibly ignorant.
This country was founded and established by a group of men with various religious backgrounds. Many of these men considered themselves Deists, which acknowledge a higher power without confining them to the boundaries of a religion. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written to absolve this nation from religious persecution, and allow any citizen to believe and practice what they want, without governing the entire country under a particular faith. So why is it that the federal government and most state governments choose to fight the seemingly simple logic of allowing same sex marriages? The argument is that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have no problem with this argument. If it says in your religious texts that only a man and a woman may marry, then that is perfectly acceptable to me. My argument is why state and federal governments recognize religious sanctity in their definition of a married couple. To do such is unconstitutional, and treats gay couples as non citizens of a country they are obviously, in most cases, citizens of.
Many argue that it makes no difference if you are considered married or not. This way of thinking is largely ignorant. A very quick and simple search on the legality and benefit of a recognized “Marriage” in the United States yields very positive arguments for allowing same sex marriages. In fact, I typed in “Benefits of Marriage” in the all Powerful Wizard of Google and found the first website to include all I needed to know to corroborate my theory on the benefits of marriage:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
Here are some interesting facts about how a marriage affects two people legally and financially:
Married Couples:
· Inherit their spouses estate
· Receive an exemption from estate and gift taxes from property left to you by your spouse
· Receive social security, medicare and disability benefits for spouses
· Receive veterans and military benefits for spouses
· Can obtain insurance through your spouse’s employer
· Can receive wages, workers compensation and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse
· Can take leave from your employer if your spouse is ill, or if a family member of a spouse dies
· Can make medical decisions on behalf of your spouse when they are unable to
· Can file for joint adoption or foster care rights
· Receive equitable division of property upon divorce
· Can Live in neighborhoods zoned for “Family Only” (Didn’t even know they zoned that!)
· Receive family rates for home, auto, health and other types of insurance
· Receive tuition discounts
This means that same sex couples that cannot marry also cannot receive these benefits – many of which are federal benefits. An important fact to recognize is that none of the benefits under federal law will apply to you if you are in a Civil Unions or Domestic Partnership. So you MUST get married in order to receive most of these benefits.
I find it incredibly disturbing that our society can face these facts but still oppose a same sex union that is recognized by the government under the same conditions as a religious marriage. It’s so simple it makes me want to vomit diarrhea from my ears. In fact, I find it outright evil that many people would still oppose a marriage even if it was not tied to a religious denomination. If we as a society stopped fighting events that have no effect or meaning in our lives and started collaborating positively on issues that affect and matter to EVERYONE (health care, fair wages, civil benefits…) we would be a lot healthier – not to mention sane.
