Equality for All Families

Caitlin McEwen Professor Elisa Glick English 3080 3 April 2014 Equality For All Families Freedom, equality, and the idea of caring for ones family are at the foreground of the gay and lesbian marriage debate. Freedom in this sense is not just being allowed to marry, but rather the idea of being a citizen in the United States and being granted the rights of being a citizen. By denying homosexual couples the right to marry, we are perpetuating the idea that gays and lesbians are lesser beings than heterosexuals and do not deserve the same rights that heterosexual couples receive. The ban on gay marriage goes further in to the lives of homosexual couples than just being married; it affects their finances, health choices, and children, creating more inequalities between them and heterosexual couples than perceived at first glance. It is important to note that these inequalities are not exclusive to the homosexual community, making the debate important to all citizens of the United States. The ideas of inequality and the suppression of others rights and freedoms as a citizen are the driving force behind banning gay marriage. George Chauncey, a historian, argues in an excerpt from Chapter 5, “The Present as History” of his book, “Why Marriage?”, that marriage, whether it be between a homosexual couple in our current time or an interracial couple in history, is related to the idea of citizenship and equality and that bans on marriage reinforces inequality (Chauncey 161). As Americans we know that once we reach a certain age, typically 18, we can get legally married by applying for a marriage license. This is something I see as an inherent right to being an American, as opposed to some other countries or cultures that have arraigned marriages or other restrictions on who can marry. By limiting who can get married in America, officials are essentially saying that homosexuals are not citizens like heterosexuals. When Chauncy says “many conservatives unapologetically argue that they oppose granting marriage rights to gay people because they would be a sign of gay equality” (Chauncey 161-162), he means that if gay marriage was allowed then people would have to admit that homosexuals were people too, just like heterosexuals, which many people do not want to admit. Chauncey quoted Representative Lamar Smith of Texas who said that, “allowing gay couples to marry would 'legitimize unnatural and immoral behavior' and accede to gay people's desire for 'full social acceptance'” (Chauncey 162). Rep. Smith literally does not want to accept that homosexuals are people too and believe that repressing their right to get married will reinforce the idea that they are not full citizens, although legally they are citizens just like heterosexual people. Chauncey shows that this is not the first time that a group was discriminated against as being lesser and not fully accepted in society. By pairing the idea of homosexual marriage with interracial marriage, he shows that bans on marriage have been used to suppress others for over 70 years in the United States. African-Americans were once seen as lesser beings up through the Civil Rights era, and we are repeating history by suppressing a group based on a factor of their existence, something they cannot control. Inter-racial marriage has since then been legalized, allowing those families the same rights as same-race couples, and homosexual couples would like to gain those rights too. Marriage brings about many benefits that homosexual couples are sometimes denied, such as the ability to make healthcare choices for their partner, parental rights of children that are not biologically theirs, and work-related insurance coverage for partners. If everyone who cohabits together is able to legally marry, then many of these rights that marriage brings would be open to everyone who fulfills the roles of being in a partnership. Chauncey explains that many people are opposed to this idea of equality, stating that fundamentalists believe gay marriage would “ratify the growing freedom of heterosexual men and women to negotiate the terms of their marital relationships without being bound by the rules that once strictly governed the roles of 'husbands' and 'wives'” (Chauncey 165-166) to which I question how someone else being allowed to marry affects what one does in their own relationship. Opponents of gay marriage are putting too much thought in to what other people do, purely because they want to keep themselves in an elevated status above others. In the 21st century it is not required that everyone gets married by a religious institution, nor is it required to be married in order to have sexual relations with a partner or have a child. I only see the financial and legal benefits to getting married as a reason for marriage for most people. Unless you are someone who follows the strict religious viewpoints of waiting until marriage to have sex and only having sex to procreate, there is not a need to get married It may sound harsh, but if everyone was granted the same benefits without being married, the institution of marriage would no longer be sacred and put others in an elevated status. Michael Warner, a social theorist and literary critic, elaborates on this problem in his text, “Beyond Gay Marriage”. Although he is not pro-gay marriage, Warner makes many arguments against those whom are anti-gay marriage. Warner points out that in 1996 Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican Representative tried to argue against same-sex marriage by saying that “People don't think that the traditional marriage ought to be demeaned or trivialized by same-sex unions” (Warner 768) but Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts asked how other people affected Hyde's marriage. There is no real answer, other than what Warner came up with: Hyde's marriage was dependent and deemed holy “at the expense of someone else's. To see gay marriage as 'demeaning' is, in his view, a way of seeing 'traditional marriage' as more significant” (Warner 768). Hyde sets the tone for the gay marriage debate; many married heterosexuals who are opposed to gay marriage on the basis that it demeans their own marriage in some way. The idea that homosexuals getting married degrades heterosexual marriage is based on the fact that marriage is discriminatory by nature (Warner 769). As I previously mentioned, those who are married have privileges that unmarried couples do not have, such as insurance benefits and healthcare choices for partners. Those who are married, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual gain those benefits while unmarried couples go without. If we continue to ban gay marriage, then heterosexual couples will be elevated by continuing to be the only group that receives those benefits. The biggest problem I see across all discussions of the gay marriage debate is that there are many benefits to marriage that those who are not married wish they could receive. Regardless of sexuality, the desire for the benefits that marriage gives is seen across the board, as Nancy Polikoff, an American family lawyer, discusses in her book, “Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law. In Chapter 7, “Valuing All Families”, Polikoff claims that “When law makes marriage the dividing line, it harms all unmarried people, including those with children” (Polikoff 123). The bigger problem with the gay marriage debate is that it is actually a legal debate on what gets classified as a family and to whom should benefits go to in families that are not traditional one father, one mother, and the possibility of children. If a couple recognizes themselves as cohabitants or a family, they should be treated as one even if they are not legally married. In 21st century America I see families that are heterosexual married couples with children, as well as those without children. There are also heterosexual unmarried couples with and without children, but who behave like a married couple in the sense of sharing household duties and finances. I have seen single parents, both mothers and fathers, who either raise a child on their own, with the help of family and friends, or with a partner but may not see that partner as a cohabitant. Then there are homosexual families who mimic their heterosexual counterparts, some have children, some do not, and some rely on extended family for help. With the diverse family dynamics, many families are losing out on benefits that are currently granted to heterosexual married couples. Polikoff references Grace Blumberg, a law professor that advocates treating married couples and unmarried couples in similar ways. One of Blumberg's arguments is that “Social Security, income tax, and workers' compensation should take into account unmarried cohabitants, based either on cohabitation alone, cohabitation for a set time, or cohabitation with birth of a child” (Polikoff 125). This would take the focus of the gay marriage debate away from the couples being homosexual and instead would question if a family that is not in a legal marriage works as a family unit and if so, then they can receive the same benefits as those who are married. Polikoff states this quite eloquently when she says, It is better to extend benefits to family units that actually are supporting each other, regardless of any legal obligation. In fact, it is nonsensical to deny a benefit, such as health insurance coverage, to a couple who are supporting each other on the ground that they are not required to do so. Giving privileges to those who make an unenforceable promise of commitment over those who have carried out that commitment is the triumph of formalism over function. It's the life together, not the promise, that the law should recognize. (Polikoff 129) Couples should not be tied down to getting married just so they receive benefits that can be given to them without entering into a marriage contract. To further show that benefits need to be extended to families that are not part of the one male, one female dichotomy, Richard Mohr, a Doctor of Philosophy writes in Chapter 3, “The Case for Lesiban and Gay Marriage” of his book, “The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Equlity, and Rights” that as of the year 2000, 33 percent of lesbian couples reported having children under nineteen years of age living with them, while 22 percent of male couples did. One might well ask what conceivable purpose can be served for these children by barring to their gay and lesbian parents the mutual cohesion, emotional security, and economic benefits that are ideally promoted by legal marriage. (Mohr 60) There is no reason as to why these families should be denied benefits, there is no reason why anyone in a partnership should be denied benefits, especially when children are at stake. Other forms of benefits that couples receive under the law should also be changed to give people the freedom to appoint someone other than their partner as a responsible party, such as who should receive death benefits. If I get married but would rather my sister receive my benefits because I think she needs them more than my partner, I should have the right to appoint her to that role. This ties in to the gay marriage debate, because at the moment people are only focusing on the homosexual community and the fact that many of them wish to get married and be recognized as a legal couple, but it goes further than that, with all couples, regardless of sexuality, needing to receive the same benefits that married couples receive, because most partnerships who wish to have these benefits, put the same amount of effort in to their relationship as a married couple.  Works Cited Chauncey, George. Why Marriage Matters: The History Shaping Today's Debate Over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Print. Mohr, Richard D. "The Case for Lesbian and Gay Marriage." The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Equality, and Rights. New York: Columbia UP, 2005. 55-72. Ebrary. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. Polikoff, Nancy D. "Valuing All Families." Beyond Straight and Gay Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law. Boston: Beacon, 2008. 123-145. Ebrary. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. Warner, Michael. "Beyond Gay Marriage" In: Queer Cultures, Ed. Deborah Carlin and Jennifer DiGrazia. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. McEwen 7