The question about the morality of same-sex marriage has much to do with the morality of slavery or any other issue dealing with minorities of all types. Denying homosexuals the ability to legally marry is comparable to discrimination, and also that the homosexuals are sub-human.
In order for the reader to better understand the following argument, I feel I should clarify my reasoning for certain claims made. I will later claim that minors should not be able to marry. The reasons for this are numerous, but I shall only discuss a few. The first and foremost is that the majority of minors are not able to reasonably make such a decision until they reach a certain age and maturity level. Granted, most humans in general are not able to, but that is for a later argument. Also, and more importantly, our society recognizes such a belief by imposing restrictions upon these individuals, such as a minimum voting and alcoholic drinking age. Another claim I make is that discrimination in most forms is immoral. Discrimination is defined by Merriam-Webster as “prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment (m-w.com)”. There can be good discrimination, such as the protection of the ignorant or uneducated from themselves, like the previous example of minors. However, the impediment to the betterment of a certain group is the specific manifestation of discrimination of which we are most concerned. My operational manifestation of morality for this paper is that those actions which strive to achieve full status for all people, regardless of sex, race or creed, are moral.
Under our Constitution, we recognize the full rights of all individuals. These rights, however, are conventionally limited to humans, regardless of debate otherwise. If society denies certain groups of any kinds of rights, whether it is to vote, practice the religion of their choice, or freedom of speech, it would fall under the practice of discrimination. Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges…of citizens of the United States… (law.cornell.edu)”. The right to marry is a privilege accorded to only certain members of our society. Currently, consenting citizens over a certain age and of a specific sexual orientation are granted this privilege. As I stated previously, one can understand why minors are not allowed to marry without parental consent, but a ban on same-sex couples is, as I stated before, discriminatory and therefore immoral.
If one were to argue that same-sex marriage is a matter for the states to decide, and thus subject to state law rather than federal, the thesis would imply that homosexuals are sub-human. The national constitution refers to citizens as “persons”. This is a legal recognition of humanity and the denial of this would be most convenient. Slavery was allowed to continue for as long as it did because African-Americans were thought to be animalistic and not of the same species as Caucasian-Americans, which was believed to be of a higher order. However, we now know this to be a false belief, but it continues sub-consciously in the refusal to grant homosexuals full privileges others are accorded.
When considering the moral implications of same-sex marriage, it is important to understand the humanistic impact of our decision making processes. By allowing homosexuals to marry, we would be fully recognizing their humanity, and as such a working toward the advancement of all individuals to the point where no detrimental discrimination exists. While this may remain a lofty goal for some time, there is hope for the humanity of humankind.
