Over the last few months, the debate on whether to legalize or ban gay marriages in the United States has been one of the longest ones. In addition, for almost three decades now, people across all divides have tried to raise their issues, on which side to take on this debate. The views of people across the world remain divided on the matter of gay marriages. The state of New York becomes the latest to allow gay marriages, making it to the list of eight states that had earlier legalized it.
In understanding gay marriages, one should ask about the American Dream. This is a dream that everyone in the United States hold dear, and within this the individuals support one freedom and equality. However, this is not the case over the homosexual rights. If one asks people in the society if they support gay marriages, they will vehemently say no. This is a clear indication of the fact that the concept of gay marriages among the people is yet to receive the equal rights and freedoms that the constitution bestows on all people.
Some of the opponents of gay marriages say that such marriages should remain null and void on the grounds of religion. Opponents believe that the move to legalize gay marriages should stop as this goes against the religious teaching, to which the society ascribes (Dobson). The arguments put forward are that the society must nullify such unions as this will dent the “conventional definition of marriage” (Southern Baptists Convention).
In addition, the Church of Jesus Christ holds the view that marriage is the only “institution that God ordained” (The Church of Jesus Christ). Thus, a movement or any departure from this set of arrangement is a move that will entail the endorsement of the lifestyles of homosexuality that the Bible did not support. This is sinful based on what the scripture teaches about. However, this begs to ask the questions, what is the right religion? Is the same Bible teaching us to exercise religious tolerance? Why do the people oppose these views? The First Amendments indicate that the Congress does not have the mandate to make a law that respects the establishment of a religion or prohibit the exercise (Dixon). The amendment is clear in the sense that it protects the rights of religious freedom. At the same time, the amendment gave a confirmation that the Bible plays little relevance in the American law. Thus, this is clear that the Amendment holds that religion shall not form the basis of making the laws of the land. The First Amendment moots the religious argument. The people, the American people, often call for the separation of the state and religion. Thus, have they done the same by projecting the ideas that oppose gay marriages? The founding fathers instituted the essence of keeping the state separate from the church, a basis from which the country took the First Amendment. Then why do we want to hold to religious views to support or to oppose gay marriages?
However, the majority of the opponents continue to impose their religious beliefs onto other so that they formulate laws that incline towards those beliefs. From the First Amendment, it is clear that individuals do not have a right to impose or compel rules, norms, beliefs, opinions, just because they want to justify a moral dilemma that emanates from the Bible. It is also clear that not all people have the same inclination to the same morals. Thus, the arguments from individuals that oppose gay marriage on the grounds of religion will not have a basis for denying the individuals their rights. At the same time, it is clear that gay marriages do not impose any individual to support them or demand a change of individual beliefs in order to accept them to this religion. Gay marriages must remain free from a religion that will determine the laws of the land. At the same time, the sex marriages neither impose, nor endorse any form of discrimination against a certain religion.
James Dobson writes that marriage is under fire and there is need to win that battle. With the Focus on the Family opposition movement that falls under his command, they aim at promoting the truth that “homosexuality is preventable” (Dobson 74). At the same time, Dobson goes further to claim that the life of “homosexuals in not as happy” as the media portrays it to be (Dobson 72). This book by Dobson describes the need to oppose same sex marriages. This is a member of the straight community who claims that homosexuality is preventable and one can change it. Thus, what is the influence of the research that experts have put, which shows that homosexuality is genetic. Does this count in making the conclusions that Dobson has? In the same light, people argue that it is a choice, do gays have a choice? Thus, it is clear that individuals have a right to make choices and such choices should not lay the foundation of prejudice.
Just like Dobson, other religious organizations and clergies oppose marriage on the premise of the Holy Book. Religious groups have placed the marriage on the pedestal. Thus, it is easy for them to say that supporting gay marriages will lead to an end of the perfection within the institution of marriage. The fact today is that, marriage as an institution is under a continuous struggle, since as close to half of all marriages end in divorces (Baker). Today, the number of successful marriages seems to decline, and the trend shows that the marriage institution is on a steady drop. For instance, Baker indicates that in 2005, the number of marriages was 2,162,000 a significant drop from 2,279,000 in the previous year. Some of the infamous people like Larry King and Elizabeth Taylor are examples that show how marriages are turbulent by having married for close to eight times. This is a clear show of the sanctity status of the marriage institution and the damage on the reputation, along with others that they have caused. To this end, the argument that gay marriages may compromise the reputation of the already crippled institution remains irrelevant. In this light, it remains clear that the heterosexuals and straight individuals are yet to hold the “ideals” that they do not conform. Thus, the argument does not hold. Gay marriages will not destroy an institution that is already in a quagmire.
Many times, opponents of gay marriages argue that homosexual may not exercise monogamy. They believe that this is not a norm among gays. The fact is that this is a rarity (Baker). On the other hand, Sprigg argues that these will “push for polygamy” (Sprigg). Does the same problem exist in heterosexual relationships? People look at the issue of gay marriages from one side, and just seek to identify the errors that exist in gay marriages so as to oppose their existence. Taking a closer look, it is clear that those in straight marriages are in faulty arrangements too. Various statistics indicate that those in marriages, straight marriages, have admitted to infidelity. In this case, about 57 percent of men, and 54 percent of women often admit to committing infidelity while in relationships. This goes without saying that the heterosexual marriages are not in any way better than the gay marriages. It is hypocritical to hang gay marriages in the sense that what affects all people cut across all side, whether gay or straight (Baker).
Again, people should ask why gays are gay and why straight people are straight. Opponents of gay marriages argue that allowing such arrangements will be tantamount to putting a new concept in the society that would lead to decline in fidelity, commitment, and the permanence of marriages and the deconstruction of family and marriage (Dobso 36; Sprigg). However, this is still a rarity and has no comprehensive studies have given illumination on the subject. The fact is that gays and homosexuality have been part of the society. Thus, can the society exercise tolerance and give it a chance to exercise growth? Gay marriages and other behaviors among the homosexuals thrive in all societies and should have a chance to flourish.
The society and the majority of people believe that marriage is only possible between one man and one woman. This is the belief that many people hold. This is the traditional view that assumes marriage has to involve individuals of the opposite sex. Thus, anything on the contrary is untraditional. In this case, the opponents of gay marriage believe that gay marriages are a threat to the institution of marriage. The fact is that this argument lacks factual evidences. One question that a person should ask is how does allowing gay marriages affect or threat the institution of marriage. Is it vital that only the heterosexual individuals have the right to marriage? The Constitution is clear from the onset that citizens of a given state remain “entitled to immunities and privileges of citizens in other states” (Dixon). To this end, it is clear that all citizens in the United States have rights that affect them with equal measure. Thus, all states must respect the rights of individuals as they all enjoy the American Dream. Going against the principles that the Constitution preserves is equivalent to going against the principles of human rights.
In conclusion, the belief brought out by Dobson, along with other religious groups on gay marriages shows the distortion that exists in facts. People often assume that gay tend to be promiscuous in the sense that they cannot form viable relationships. This is a clear stereotype that characterizes the population that lacks facts. In the same light, straight and non gay marriages are not the best from which societies can judge gay marriages. In addition, the law is clear on the separation of religion from the state. Religion should not form the foundation upon which the society can judge and impose restrictions on gay marriages. Today, about ten percent of the American society belongs to the gay community. Thus, the American society must live according to the maxims of the American Dream. This calls for liberty and justice for all people. This will be analogous to giving gays their due.