A young couple stands facing each other with their hands intertwined. The words, “I do.” echo intimately through the wedding hall. The air is charged with new beginnings, exuberant joy, and a dash of romantic tension. This day has been long awaited. “I now pronounce you husband and wife. You may kiss the bri-” the pastor is cut off by the protests of some people in the stands. “This couple can’t get married; it’s disgusting and illegal and wrong! Everyone in here is going to rot in Hell for supporting this abomination,” they yell. All of the hope and happiness that once encompassed the room is ripped away and replaced with anger and despair. This couple’s dream of living a happy life together with the benefits of wedlock has been torn from their hands; all because a group of people were unsupportive of their marriage. Does this seem fair? It shouldn't because it isn't. Sadly, this is happening every day; not in situations involving a man and a woman, but rather a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Gay and lesbian couples, most of whom are excellent, hard-working, loving people, seek out marriage licenses only to be turned away because their relationship is considered “wrong” by some American citizens. Refusing to wed these people not only denies them the right to call their love legal, but also prevents them from receiving all of the emotional, financial, and medical benefits that come with marriage, while promoting a tolerance for discrimination in America. Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States because denying a group of people the right to marry is unconstitutional, gay marriage would strengthen the economy both on a national and statewide level, and it does not negatively affect society in any way.

Denying the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community, or any group of people for that matter, the right to marry is a form of minority discrimination and violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Added to the constitution in 1868, the clause states:

“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 the laws.”

Basically, this asserts that all citizens of the United States should be guaranteed equal legal privileges-also known as civil rights. In 1967, during the Loving v. Virginia case, the US supreme court struck down state bans on interracial marriage, and established “freedom to marry” as one of these civil rights. Because of this, allowing states to deny homosexual marriage is unconstitutional, and suggests a tolerance for minority discrimination in the United States. Minority discrimination occurs when a group of people differing from the majority of the population based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc. are treated with prejudice. Some people argue, “It isn’t prejudice, I have the right to vote to ban gay marriage, and majority vote rules.” While it is true that people have the right to vote against gay marriage, that does not mean it can be justified. Historically, in other instances of minority discrimination (i.e. racial segregation, women’s rights issues, slavery, etc.), the majority has always voted against the minority. This argument suggests that things like interracial marriage and women’s suffrage should not have been legalized because the majority of people disagreed with it. Sometimes judicial or legislative intervention is required because the majority will vote with no legally sound basis; only personal prejudice. Prohibiting same-sex marriage impeccably illustrates this type of unjust discrimination because a minority class of people are being denied the civil right of marriage along with all of the financial, emotional, and medical benefits that come with it. These benefits include, but are not limited to, hospital visitation, emergency medical decisions, shared insurance, family unification, stronger physical and mental health, family leave, child support in the case of divorce, joint parenting, and joint tax returns. What does this mean for gay people? It means an insured lesbian must watch her uninsured partner endure a critical illness with no hope of being able to financially support any medical procedures or drugs. It means a gay man trying to emigrate from Mexico to the United States to be with his partner and child is denied a family reunification visa because he is not legally tied to his family. It means a lesbian who loses her partner in an accident and is not the legal adoptive guardian of their children faces having them taken away from her.

As a solution for these tragic situations, some people have proposed the compromise of civil unions. A civil union is defined as, “A legally recognized union of a same-sex couple, with rights similar to those of a marriage.” On the surface this appears to be a fantastic idea, however it is truly only a continuation of minority discrimination. First of all, a civil union does not guarantee all of the rights of marriage (i.e. social security, joint tax returns, immigration rights, etc.), and is not legally recognized by most states. Thus if a gay couple were granted a civil union in Illinois, they would not necessarily be able to return to Utah and expect the legal benefits of that union. Second of all, forcing gay couples to settle for a second-class version of marriage feeds into the bigotry of the anti-gay agenda. There is no sub-category of marriage for interracial couples, so why should gay couples have to settle for less? Some argue that this is because homosexuality is not something, unlike race or gender, that one is born with, but rather a choice. There are multiple issues with this argument. First of all, while there is not a consensual specific causation of homosexuality, most all modern biological studies suggest that it is something one acquires at birth. Yale scientific magazine states, “Homosexuality has been documented in over 450 species of animals.” These species include giraffes, caribou, penguins, lizards, and chimpanzees. In New York’s Central Park Zoo, for instance, Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins, have been involved and inseparable for over six years. They exhibit mutual attraction for one another, and engage in sexual intercourse while disregarding female penguins. Because animals lack the conscientious decision-making skills that humans possess, these observations suggest that homosexuality is not a choice, but rather a natural occurrence. Several theories regarding brain structure, the fraternal birth effect, and the lack of a homosexual “cure” also support that it is natural. Furthermore, in a street interview conducted in Colorado Springs, people were asked, “When did you choose to be straight?” Most struggled to find a coherent answer, and eventually gave in by saying, “I don’t think I did.” One woman, after stating her belief that being gay is not a choice, went on to say, “If they were going to choose a lifestyle, that is not one they would’ve chosen. It’s too difficult.” This is an excellent point. Studies show that those belonging to the LGBT community have much higher rates of depression due to social condemnation, financial issues, and discrimination in family life and the workplace. Youth suicide statistics show that 30% of all suicides are related to sexual identity, and that LGBT youth are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual youth. Why then, would anyone choose this lifestyle of oppression? It’s nonsensical, and even if it were a choice so is religion, parental status, occupation, political affiliation, and several other things protected by the constitution. Regardless, people should not be discriminated against based on the personal decisions they make, nor the way they are born. Doing so violates not only the Constitution, but also America’s foundation of freedom, and the prospect of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

In states and countries where gay marriage has been legalized, significant improvement in the economy through tax revenues, lowered government welfare, and strengthened business competitiveness has been recognized. Marriage is recognized as one of the most economically beneficial human events, especially in regards to local businesses. Engaged couples will spend, on average, $25,656 on their wedding. Of that money, some percentage goes to catering, florists, photographers, clothing stores, and venue rentals; most of these being local businesses. Buying locally costs less in respect to transportation, creates more jobs, and increases the overall wealth of the community. If gay marriage was legalized across United States, a larger percentage of the population would be getting married, and that means more local spending on weddings. In the year that gay marriage has been legalized in New York City, it has been estimated that the state’s economy was boosted by about $259 million dollars just from wedding-related spending. Of that $259 million, 10% was thanks to same-sex couples. On a national level, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that same-sex marriages would bring in close to $1 billion from wedding-related taxes every year. This means, in the next ten years, the government would have about $10 billion to fund education, energy and environmental spending, international affairs, medical spending, lowering taxes, etc. Marriage also decreases reliance on government welfare by providing social security, tax cuts, and an overall sense of financial stability for couples. The CBO estimates that the US will save $100 million dollars in Supplemental Security income, $300 million in Medicaid, and $50 million in Medicare. That would bring in $450 million dollars in savings per year. Not only that, but competitiveness for major companies in the business world would increase substantially. Several major business corporations including Apple, Nike, Walt Disney, Verizon, Microsoft, Google, etc. are huge supporters of gay marriage. These corporations argue that, without same-sex marriage, they risk losing some of their best, most creative workers. They want to insure that their LGBT employees are able to work to the best of their ability without having to deal with the financial and emotional struggles that come with discrimination. By legalizing gay marriage, the economy will grow both locally and nationally, and LGBT people will be more willing to work hard in a country where they feel valued and accepted.

Some of the main arguments against same-sex marriage claim that it is detrimental to society because it infiltrates certain religious denominations, weakens the institution of marriage, and is harmful to children. Anti-gay activists have argued that legalizing gay marriage will force churches to change their beliefs and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Thanks to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, this argument is completely illogical. The 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means that the legalization of gay marriage will not have any affect on the religious practices of churches. First of all, religious marriage and civil marriage are independent institutions. One does not affect or change the other. Therefore, if same-sex marriage were legalized, it would still be perfectly legal for a church to turn away a gay couple seeking a wedding ceremony. Secondly, any church that believes gay marriage is a sin can continue teaching that belief, even if gay marriage is legal. There are several other things like tattoos, divorce, pre-marital sex, and cursing that many churches consider sinful, but are perfectly legal. Because church and state are completely separate entities, government cannot govern what is taught in a church, and a church cannot decide what is or is not legal based on their religious views. Any religious-based arguments are unconstitutional and legally irrelevant. Another common assertion against same-sex marriage declares that gay marriage will diminish the “sacred institution” of heterosexual marriages. The question to ask here is, how does the marriage of a gay couple in any way affect the marriage of a straight couple? Gay couples are already getting married in some states and countries, these marriages have had no antagonistic effects on divorce rates, children born out of wedlock, or abortion rates. Why should nationally legalizing same-sex marriage be any different? Some argue that this is because marriage has always been defined as, “A union of a man and a woman,” and that that definition should remain the same. Historically, however, the definition of marriage has been changed several times. There was a time when women were considered property, when polygamous marriages were allowed, and interracial marriages were illegal. Changing this definition might break tradition, but it will also promote acceptance and progression, two things that have allowed for major, invaluable, historical changes in society - the Civil Rights movement, for example. The final argument most commonly made concerning the injurious effects same-sex marriage has on society suggests that same-sex households are an unhealthy environment for children. This is invalid for a few reasons. Firstly, the American Psychological Association states that, “Gay and lesbian couples are just as fit to be parents as heterosexual couples.” The APA bases all of their claims on extensive scientific research, and are one of the most credible psychological organizations in the country. Secondly, the United States has never denied people the ability to have children based on their parenting skills. People with mental illness are allowed to marry and have children, people who are alcoholics are allowed to marry and have children, gamblers, liars, and cheaters are allowed to marry and have children, so gay people should also be allowed to marry and have children. Their sexuality has nothing to do with their parenting skills, and in some respects, gay couples are actually more committed to being good parents than heterosexual couples because they must choose to be parents. Modernly, about 50% of children are born accidentally to heterosexual couples. This means that they are generally financially and emotionally unprepared to raise a child. Gay couples, on the other hand, must plan far in advance to have children because together they cannot reproduce, so they generally have to adopt. This extreme amount of preparation mixed with a true desire for children translates to these people being very involved as parents. Some argue that gay people aren’t necessarily bad parents, but that children need both a man and a woman role model in their home life. This argument suggests that widow(er)s, divorced couples, and military families should not be allowed to have children either, so unless the government plans on denying those people the ability to raise children, it is irrelevant. Therefore, the legalization of gay marriage is in no way pernicious to churches, heterosexual couples, children, or any other aspects of society. Instead it promotes diversity, acceptance, and change: all things that have been historically beneficial to America by shaping it into the country it is today.

Legalizing same-sex marriage is not just about letting gay couples call their relationship marriage. It is about escaping the very narrow-minded, discriminatory way of thinking that belongs to anti-gay activists. It is about living up to America’s principles of freedom and equality, and moving towards a society where everyone can lead a life in the “pursuit of happiness.” It is about letting a group of people celebrate the natural right of love without prejudice. The United States should legalize gay marriage because banning violates the Constitution and tolerates discrimination, the amount of money spent towards wedding-related costs will boost local and national economies, and it is not harmful to anyone, but instead promotes non-discrimination, cultural diversity, and progression. Someday, children will be reading about the gay rights movement in history books, and feel appalled by the ignorance of those against it. It is, as Macklemore so eloquently puts it, “The same hate that’s caused wars from religion / Gender to skin-color, the complexion of your pigment / The same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins / It’s human rights for everybody there is no difference!”