As President Bush helps the people of foreign nations achieve freedom, he forgets about the rights of some of his own here in the United States. The Bush Administration leads the charge against gay marriage, fighting to prevent homosexuals from being treated as an equal part of society. Oddly, the same conservatives who cry for all people to enjoy the same rights want to restrict the rights of a certain group of people simply because of their sexual orientation. Religious conservatives in both the Republican and the Democratic Party have consistently argued that gay marriage is immoral. But who defines morality? In a society where church and state are supposed to be separate, one cannot make the argument of immorality using any religious text. Only the U.S. Constitution can say what is moral and what is not and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that homosexuals cannot marry. Many argue that same-sex couples do not provide the best environment in which to raise children. But studies have also shown that in homes where one or both parents are missing, children are more likely to fail in school, do violent acts, or even commit suicide. Is this environment better than the one created in the home of a same-sex couple? More specifically, is there a difference between the environment in a home created either by a heterosexual or homosexual couple? So long as both parents love their children, the sexuality of the parents makes no difference in the development of a child. Religious conservatives have also argued that the marriage is a framework for procreation, therefore excluding same-sex couples by definition. However, this statement cannot be completely true because of the many exceptions found in today’s society. Many infertile couples get married. These couples get married for the sake of companionship that marriage can provide to them. In addition, many married couples plainly choose not to have kids because it is not something that they have planned for in their lives. No one has the right to make married couples have children, or to argue that because they choose not to have children or medically are unable to have children, that they cannot get married. Hence, no one can make the argument that gay marriage should be illegal because homosexual couples cannot have children. And as to the idea of same-sex marriage threatening the foundations of marriage as a whole, that idea is simply wrong. Same-sex marriages would promote marriage because people who love each other would be able to get married and to enjoy the comforts and companionship that marriage provides. The purpose of marriage is to bring two people who already love each other even closer, bringing happiness into their lives and the lives of those around them. Same-sex marriage would strengthen the foundations of marriage as a whole rather than weaken them. The most ludicrous argument put forth by opponents of gay marriage is entirely semantic; they say that the definition of the word marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. But what’s in a name? Simply change the name of the ceremony from marriage to a civil union, as former Governor Howard Dean did when he legalized civil union relationships in the state of Vermont. Changing the name of the ceremony from marriage to civil union eliminates ambiguity between religious and secular unions while affording all couples equal treatment under the law. The Bush Administration has been successful in pushing an agenda of freedom and democracy forward throughout the world, helping to break the chains of tyranny placed on the peoples of various nations. Now it must prove that it is truly dedicated to social equality. To do this, it should remove the chains placed on homosexuals living in the United States. Homosexuals already enjoy many rights in this country and there is no adequate reason to deny them the right to get married legally and to be recognized as a married couple by the United States Government.
