Gay rights

       The debate over gay rights has been raging for so long that it seems to have become so convoluted that no simple solution is feasible. This is not, however, the case. The entire discussion really only centers around two fundamental points: how to define relationships between homosexuals and what, if any, rights are they entitled to before the law. Both of these questions, to my mind, have fairly straightforward solutions.
       The first question is whether homosexuals are entitled to any rights at all. This question seemingly depends on where homosexuality comes from. Is it a genetic trait, such as race, gender, hair color, or is it a lifestyle choice that an individual consciously commits to? The answer here is that in either case homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but let me clarify each argument separately.
       If you take the standpoint that homosexuality is genetic, then gays have no more choice about who they are sexually attracted to than what color their hair is or how tall they are. In the same way that it is unreasonable to deny someone legal status based on height, it is equally unreasonable to deny legal status based on sexual preference. US laws, and particularly, the US Constitution, has specific provisions today that forbid discrimination against and require protection of all US citizens. Namely, “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” (Amendment XIV). In other words, if you have committed, you are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. The various versions of defense-of-marriage acts and amendments to state constitutions patently abridge certain privileges of homosexuals and deny equal protection of the laws. These are absolutely civil rights violations. Since Amendment XIV was added to the Constitution, additional laws have been put in place to stop discrimination based on gender and race. Discrimination of sexual preference is the last legal bastion of bigotry left in this country. As such, it is well past time to quash this prejudice and begin truly following the precepts of equal civil rights protection before the law.
       But what if homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? If people choose to kill or rape others, they are punished by the law, so if they choose to engage in homosexuality, should they not also be legally reprimanded? The answer is simply no, and the reason is that a choice of sexual partnership neither restricts the liberties and choices of others nor brings harm to others. A criminal is (or ought to be) defined as one who brings harm to others or, more generally, denies them their liberties. Consenting sexual relationships do no such thing. The popular position taken up by opponents of gay rights is that homosexuality (or sodomy, as they often prefer to call it) is sinful or inappropriate behavior, but this is a strictly religious moral position and should have no bearing on what is written down in secular law. Much as they don't like homosexuals, they have no legal right to restrict their liberty. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence “we hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Well, choosing your life partner undeniably qualifies as Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. What right has any one person to tell another with whom he can and cannot build a life? And if a couple chooses to have children, who can deny them this right? And if they cannot have children of their own, and wish to adopt a child and provide her a safe, caring, loving home, who can deny them this right? And if a person falls ill, who is better qualified to make medical decisions about him than his life partner? How can anyone deny another human being these rights under any pretense, let alone the things they do privately and consentually? But that is exactly what is happening in America today. Under the earlier definition, it is the people that would seek to deny the civil rights of homosexuals who are the criminals in our society, not the homosexuals themselves.
       As I stated earlier, using either the argument of genetics or of lifestyle choice is irrelevant. Both lead to the conclusion that homosexuals are entitled to the same civil rights as heterosexuals. So much for point number one. As for point number two, how exactly are they currently being denied their rights and why? The crux here is what has seemingly become the focal point of the entire debate, and that is the definition of the word “marriage.” This, despite all appearances, is actually the simple half of the question.
       The word “marriage” has come to us purely out of religious texts, in particularly, in our society, the Bible. Marriage is an ancient social institution, but it has historically always been first and foremost a religious institution. The ceremony of marriage is a public display before people and God of two people's commitment to each other as life partners, and since Western religions have traditionally considered homosexuality sinful, the ceremony has always implicitly meant the union of one man and one woman. The problem with this implication arose when religious morality was carried over into legal doctrine, in the case of the United States through British common law. Legal texts pertaining to property rights, adoption rights, medical treatment, in short, all legal texts pertaining to civil domestic rights used marriage as the basis for recognition of such rights. At the time of their writing, these laws had no need to make a distinction as to what marriage meant as society did not recognize homosexual partnerships. However, now that committed homosexual relationships are more recognized and gays are seeking recognition of their domestic rights, they have run into the impenetrable wall of that single word. Since marriage is historically between man and woman, any union between two men and two women cannot be recognized before the law. But I emphatically state again that the definition of marriage is a religious moral one. The laws of the United States are meant to protect a secular society where a separation of church and state is demanded by the citizens to protect their liberties from oppression by the religious majority. Thus the real problem is not the definition of marriage, on which the proponents of the Defense of Marriage Act harp so insistently, but the use of the word itself in the legal texts of the land.
       I propose an elegant solution to this problem. From the gay community, I ask simply that they concede the use of the word marriage to its religious definition. After all, it is only a word, and this is a tiny compromise. The commonly accepted alternate term is “civil union,” but I honestly could not care less what you choose to call it because the importance lies in the nature of the relationship and not in its name. From everyone opposed to “gay marriage,” I ask that the alternate term for a union of two men or two women is written into the laws as defining such a relationship and furthermore, and most importantly, that this term is given equal status with marriage in legal terms. The two terms should have equal meaning and indicate equal protection of civil rights. Thus the religious definition of marriage is not impugned by the “sinful” homosexuals, and the secular civil liberties of homosexuals are not infringed by the religious community morally opposed to them. I put forth that this is the most equitable solution for all citizens of the United States and that we can put to rest this argument that, for all its biliousness, should never have happened at all. It is time to close another chapter in the history of American intolerance and move forward to the actual problems facing our society rather than the imagined ones.