My Argument for Same Sex Marriage

Same-sex marriage is a polarized issue that many Americans fear will result in economic, legal, and social repercussions.  Gay Marriage has an extensive history in cultures around the world beginning in ancient times and still causes controversy today.  However, there is much research showing the long and short term benefits gay marriage has on society.  Many people are still uninformed about the history, psychology and sociological effects of one of the greatest debates in modern history.
Same-sex marriage has its roots in the very beginning of recorded civilization, beginning with Africa.  Within African tribal society, barren women would often take other women to be their brides. These 'female husbands' were granted the full rights of a male husband, including damages should the wife share sexual intimacy outside of the marriage.  In Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures, homosexual marriages were recognized as law; proof of this can be shown by a mural wall carving of two men in the ritual marriage ceremony within a Pharaonic tomb.  In Mesopotamia, the Code of Hammurabi contained no preclusions to same-sex marriage even though it regulated everything else having to do with marriage (Random History).
In Native America, homosexuals were honored instead of reviled; called 'two-spirits' many entered homosexual marriage with one another and enjoyed identical benefits and honors as if they were in a heterosexual marriage (Random History).  It was not until the Europeans arrived to North America and burned any such practitioners as sodomites did the Native American community began a forced cultural shift away from homosexual acceptance.  Even though European civilization became the main instigator of homosexual hate crimes during its imperial expansion around the world, same-sex marriage has much history in Eurasia as well.  The Roman Empire respected homosexual marriages until Constantine banned the practice along with allowing Christianity to be legal (Frakes).  In China and India, homosexuality was not treated as a crime as a sin but rather as a slight perversion, though in Buddhism it was praised for its mystery.
The most vitriolic arguments against gay marriage and homosexual acceptance are usually presented by evangelical Christians.  Many wish to see the law condemn homosexuality in addition to simply banning homosexual marriage.  The reasons for this are claimed to be rooted in the Bible, which many believe regards homosexuality as a sin; some radical Christians even believe gay people should be put to death by the civil authorities.  For example, many Christians believe that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality twice.  First with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Book of Genesis and also within the many strictures spelled out in the Book of Leviticus.  For those who scoff at the legitimacy of the comparatively outdated Old Testament, evangelicals also point to two instances within the New Testament.  In Romans, Paul writes about his disapproval of homosexual practices during his travels in Rome.  In 1 Corinthians, the Bible mentions 'homosexual offenders' (White).  In this way, many Christian voters strongly oppose same-sex marriage.
However, there are a growing number of young evangelicals and other Christians who believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality or same-sex marriage in the way many believe it does.  In a poll from last year, the Public Religion Research Institute found that 44% of evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 29 support same-sex marriage despite the 80% of overall evangelicals who oppose it. The poll also found that 52% of all Catholics in America support gay marriage, despite their Church's teachings to the contrary (The Christian Century).  This displays a gross change of opinion between different age groups and also indicates that it is a matter of time before Christian opinion of the issue will shift majorly. The main reasons for the change of opinion rests with new research conducted into the translations and history behind much of the scripture, which was accepted without question for centuries. For example, many of these forward thinkers point to the fact that Paul was referring to pedophiles in his public denouncement of homosexuality. They also point out the hypocrisy of the fact that the Old Testament contained many other rules that most of the strongest detractors of gay marriage do not follow.  So while many argue that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because it violates the religious rights of Christians, they should also take into account the many Christians who support and approve of gay marriage (White).
Many religions besides Christianity also have doctrines regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriages for good or for ill.  In Islam, for example, homosexuality is considered a grievous sin and it is often punishable by death in primarily Muslim nations. However, there is a small movement of homosexual Muslims who seek to have their rights recognized. In Judaism, most now accept homosexuality as natural, while only Orthodox Judaism still considers it a sin.  Baha'i, meanwhile, does not advocate discriminating against homosexuals but neither does it agree with their lifestyle. Overall, there is very little historical basis arguing against homosexual marriage and most of the religious in the United States have no qualms against it.
In the United States, however, same-sex marriage and homosexual acceptance itself is a relatively new concept. The first major push for gay rights began with the Stonewall Riots in New York City in 1969; during which a regular police raid of a gay bar found the first ever opposition as bar frequenters decided to push back. Same-sex marriage itself was first introduced in Massachusetts in 2004. Within the federal government, however, a federal Defense of Marriage Amendment (DOMA) was passes in 1996 and was never overturned, disallowing the United States to recognize same-sex marriage on the federal level. State DOMA's are currently in place in all of the states no already allowing gay marriage. Currently, only eight states allow same-sex marriage; many states that do allow it are now facing legislation and state ballot initiatives to block such amendments from passing in the states' Constitution.
Regarding the legality of same-sex marriage in general, one must review the first amendment of the United States Constitution. The Constitution states that the US shall make no laws honoring a religious establishment. One must also remember that religious marriage and civil marriage are two different things. People often decide to have both at the same time, while others prefer nonreligious, civil marriages in the courtroom. There are other people who use forms of religious marriage that is not sanctioned by the government and thus is not recognized by the state; Examples of this type are polygamists who marry multiple people for religious reasons. The supporters of gay marriage are in no way wishing to force all religious establishments to grant marriages to them, but only for the government to make legal recognitions of their bond so they will reap the many benefits.
Prohibition of same-sex marriage can also represent an intrusion of privacy. Marriage is a personal decision made by two people for the rest of their lives. Marriage may be recognized and approved by governments but this does not change the fact that it is a private matter for the benefit of the people involved. Another thing one must look at is whether homosexuals can be considered a minority group. Minority groups have been discriminated against when it comes to marriage in the history of the US. Until 1969, miscegenation laws still prevailed in the US until the president signed a law stating that no government can restrict marriage privileges based on race. Gays can also be considered a minority that are being discriminated against because there is a large body of evidence proving that they have no more say over their sexuality then their skin color.
Also, the opinions of psychological experts must be taken into account. Many psychologists and psychiatrists believe that gay people who are allowed to be married live happier and healthier lives. They often live longer and are not under the extensive stress many unmarried couples must face. Marriage almost always results in less psychological illnesses and the married couple usually lives longer than their unmarried counterparts (American Psychological Association). The mental effects of children have also been well documented among psychologists. Research shows that children of same-sex households fare better mentally than the children of unmarried couples. The reasons for this are contested but most believe it is due to a greater amount of security and safety they feel when being nurtured by a married couple, no matter the gender of the parents. Gay marriage will also improve communities as a whole, due mostly to the greater amount of importance attributed to marriage between two people. Communities are more bound together when everyone who wishes can marry one another, with fewer chances of hate crime and neglect (Pawelski).  
Many also fear social repercussions for same-sex marriage. Some politicians, such as Rick Santorum, have pointed to gay marriage and other 'social depravities' when considering the downward tilt the nation is currently experiencing. They refer to the 'moral ecology' of the nation being in danger of pollution and a degradation of values in the nation. For politicians to claim such things is ridiculous. It is not for the government to judge the nations 'values' but to protect its citizens from harm and provide needed services. Many Americans, however, buy into the stock of such people and are worried about the future of America. The answer to such questions is that gay marriage would not affect the nation much at all, when it comes to values. In fact, it would probably improve them. Holland's divorce rate has actually decreased since it began issuing marriage licenses to all genders in 2001. Is it really a degradation of values to begin encouraging more marriage? Despite the so called ill-health effects for society, gay marriage would also improve the economy. Massachusetts was predicted to gain 11 million dollars within three years of enacting gay marriage. Gay marriage would also lessen tax burden on gay families, allowing them to spend more money and thus enrich the economy. Others take great fright in the belief that same-sex marriage would threaten traditional marriage. Just as allowing African Americans to vote would not threaten the voting rights of white Americans, gay marriage would not threaten traditional marriage at all. In fact, it would probably increase respect for marriage and marriage itself would not be viewed as a discriminatory practice any longer to pro same-sex marriage proponents.
The last argument many use in the case against same-sex marriage is that it will lead to polygamy. Such people warn that allowing gay people to wed would send the United States down a proverbial 'slippery slope' to polygamy from which we would not return. In their argument for DOMA's, anti-gay rights activists state that there are two criteria for marriage. One is that it is between two people and the other is that the two people are of opposite gender. They argue that rendering one criterion moot would leave the other one up for change as well (Friedman). However, many others still argue that there was only ever one criterion to marriage; that it is between two people. Polygamy has more historical basis than same-sex marriage, yet almost all of America finds it much more repugnant than gay marriage. The primary reason for this is that women have acquired more power in the American culture. In ancient times, women only had to share husbands because they had no choice; they were treated as mere property. Today, however, women are considered equal to men and would not stand to share their husbands with anyone; neither would husbands be willing to share their wives. Polygamy would simply not work in our culture because our culture values close and singular relationships between two people no matter the gender (Saletan).
In conclusion, same-sex marriage would in no way harm our society or the 'ecological well-being' of the state of the family. There are no legal or societal arguments against it that respect the Constitution. Gay marriage would provide greater economical and psychological well-being for those involved, children included. Furthermore, religious fervor and speculation are no reasons to deny a right as foundational as freedom itself.