Why prohibiting gay marriage is an inherent denial of American values

By Michelle Hu
<mhu@hilite.org> 

In every single state that has allowed the American people to vote on whether or not gay marriage should be allowed, the answer has been no. That’s 31 for 31 so far, the latest being Maine on Nov. 3. It’s apparent that the majority of Americans who vote on this issue choose to protect the sanctity of marriage, but the entire issue of gay marriage shouldn’t even be voted on. Its prohibition means that we are denying basic civil liberties to American citizens who have the inalienable right to pursue happiness.

The main argument is that gay relationships are immoral and marriage can be only defined as a joining between a man and a woman. Some politicians have encouraged a civil union status, but the problem with civil unions is that it promotes the policy of “separate but equal.” Civil unions allow a same-sex couple to be together lawfully, but it’s still not the same as marriage. This problem is exacerbated by the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996) which prevents same-sex couples from receiving the same benefits as married couples.

For example, they can’t file joint tax returns (meaning they have to pay more in taxes), they can’t collect their partner’s Social Security benefits, nor can they be guaranteed to receive the same health care benefits as their partner. So remember “separate but equal?” It’s the same idea all over again. Civil unions separate same-sex couples from the institution of marriage, and some argue that it’s the same thing as marriage but with a different name. In reality, it’s not. Until same-sex couples can truly be married, they fall under the false pretension of being “separate but equal” American citizens.

That’s why the issue shouldn’t even be voted on. Back in the 1950s, when the Supreme Court voted to overturn “separate but equal” in the monumental case Brown v. Board of Education, the nation as a whole was up in arms. It’s safe to say that back then, if the case had been on the ballot for Americans to vote on, the nation would still be segregated to this day.

As Americans, it’s unfair to limit the freedom and happiness of others based upon a single definition of “immorality.” Before the late 20th century, interracial marriages were considered immoral. Nowadays, there are countless interracial relationships, and if the government had not stepped in decades ago to ensure the legality of these unions, they may not be accepted today.

That’s why we need to let the state or federal legislatures decide the fate of gay marriage. The importance of having a representative democracy in place is that they (the congressmen) can be held accountable. This is not the case for ballot initiatives, because votes by the citizenry are private. If a voter signs a petition or votes for or against an initiative, they are not required by law to tell others how they voted or which petition they signed. This veil of privacy takes away from the idea of representative democracy, because then no one knows who was responsible for a state law. Instead of letting congressmen who were fairly elected to office do their job, these potential laws that could determine the livelihood of American citizens are in the hands of anonymous voters.

In order for the gay marriage issue to be resolved fairly, we need to let our legislatures decide what is right for each state. If they vote a certain way that is counter to the citizens’ ideologies, the system provides an outlet for them to express their views in the form of an election. But if gay marriage continues to be determined by the populace, the protection of anonymity actually prevents the democratic system from functioning properly, and Americans lose their indisputable right to be happy.