Civil Inequality

Our country is allowing unconstitutional inequality to plague our homosexual community. Not only should the government permit “contractual civil unions between gays and lesbians as a matter of equality and fairness,” they should permit and advocate equal marriage rights, equal acknowledgement of those rights, and equal respect of those rights. In addition to providing equality to all citizens by allowing same-sex marriages to occur, the American public and government should focus on the usefulness of same-sex marriages.
An individual’s unalienable rights, as declared in the Declaration of Independence, are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Homosexual American citizens are just as deserving of these unalienable rights as heterosexual American citizens. Impeding on a homosexual individuals right to legally commit his or herself to a member of the same gender in a legally binding contract is in direct violation of his or her right to pursue happiness, right to obtain privacy, right to be treated equal and have equal protection under the laws. We must learn to balance the interests of individuals (including individuals that are homosexual) with the interests of the general public, state governments, and national government. If we continue to perpetuate civil inequalities and our strong democratic government continues to fail in alleviating this discrimination, we are surely headed in resolution by revolutionary force. We cannot continue to violate certain minorities’ fundament rights. Oppressed minorities seeking freedom founded our country. Those particular founding fathers declared to protect minority rights by ratifying the fourteenth amendment, which states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws (qtd. in Wayne, Mackenzie, Cole 625).
Same-sex marriage is still controversial in the eyes of traditional, conservative members of society, and more importantly the judges on the Supreme Court. The idea of same-sex marriage also stimulates federalism issues of power between state and national governments. Can the national government force the individual state governments to uphold other states decisions to allow same-sex marriages in regard to the “full faith and credit” notion? These issues will not be resolved without controversy, yet it is crucial that we proactively engage them. As Stephen Wayne, Calvin Mackenzie, and Richard Cole argue, “Indeed, whenever the Court sides with the individual or with a minority against the state, its decision will be controversial” (136). Similarly, focusing on the benefits of same-sex marriages is still controversial.
Instead of imposing on the unalienable rights of homosexuals, opponents of same-sex marriages should busy themselves by advocating saving millions of orphaned children’s lives. Two inexplicably linked salient issues in the world can refute arguing that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples based solely on the biological need to procreate: overpopulation and orphaned children. Allowing homosexual couples the right to marry and adopt some of the millions of orphaned children worldwide will aid in our crippling overpopulation crisis. This basic premise is only one of the many reasons to support the fundamental right for homosexuals to have equal marriage rights.
Homosexual couples are not demanding unfair, bias rights; they are demanding basic, equal rights that heterosexual couple’s are so easily granted. Until this issue is resolved, we will remain a society that harbors minority discrimination and inequality: a condemning characteristic we have spent decades trying to overcome.