Chase 1

Emilio Chase
Dr. Brown
English Composition
4 December 2014
Equality for All
As wedding bells clang loudly through the peaceful air, feelings of happiness and joy
gather in one place: a church. Ready to take on the world together, the happy couple enters into
matrimony. Wild cheers ring through the atmosphere as the recently betrothed duo saunter
through groups of loved ones. As happy as can be, the two women leave the church and drive off
with a quaint Just Married sign hanging off the back. Their home state of New York finally
recognized same-sex marriage as an equal partnership. Being s taboo issue, same-sex marriage
recently started becoming legalized around the country. In fact, before 2000, no states recognized
same-sex marriage. While progress has occurred, many states around the country still do not
approve of same-sex marriage. Of the fifty-two states in America, 35 recognize same-sex
marriage, in addition to Oregons Coquille, Washington States Suquamish Indian tribes, and
Washington DC. Such slow progression in marriage equality lend is caused by the Defense of
Marriage Act from 1996. At a federal level, this act strictly prohibited recognition of such
marriages. Slowly, marriage equality has progressed, but not far enough. Since same-sex
marriage is a states rights issue, individual state governments must legalize gay marriage to
abolish the need for civil unions, to grant adoption rights to gay couples, and to offer health
benefits to gay couples.
If individual states recognize marriage for same-sex couples provide more benefits, they
will eliminate the need for civil unions. Nearly nothing about civil unions can compare to

Chase 2

marriage, since states do not recognize them. In fact, civil unions only apply in specific states.
Since only a select few states recognize unions and if that couple would need to move, they
would experience problems with their protections. Any gay couple joined in civil union or
domestic partnership have no guarantee that its protections will travel with them to other states
(Solmonese). Confining couples to one state just so they can retain their basic protections is
wrong, regardless of how states try to spin their argument against granting protections.
Additionally, the inequality continues even in states that recognize unions. States that offer civil
unions do not treat gay couples as equals. Couples involved in a civil union or domestic
partnership and live in a state that recognizes these relationships receive only second-class
protections in comparison to their married friends and neighbors (Solmonese). While states
claim civil unions are separate but equal, civil unions are honestly far from it. By eliminating
civil unions and putting marriage rights in place, our country will achieve a level of acceptance
for all orientations it has never reached before.
By legalizing adoption for same-sex couples, a drastic increase in adoption would occur.
In different states around the country, gay couples already take care of children who need homes.
The US census in 2000 accounted for approximately 600,000 gay and lesbian families, and that
they live in 99.3% of all U.S. counties (Sioco). A large number of adoptable children currently
reside with same-sex spouses. Clearly, this is one indicator that same-sex couples are willing and
able to take care of children who need adopting. Legalizing adoption for same-sex couples
makes sense due to its prominence in America already. When trying to adopt children they foster,
gay couples also experience many complications. Around the country, same-sex foster parents
attempting to adopt their children are being denied when they claim adoption (Sioco). Anyone
with a family knows it is truly heartbreaking to know families are being forced to separate over

Chase 3

prejudiced laws. Opposition claims that children adopted by same-sex couples are susceptible to
depression and negative social stigma. While the child may experience some social problems,
such as bullying or harassment, from those less educated, studies conducted at the John Hopkins
University of Medicine have shown that depression does not connect to having same-sex parents.
Professor Frederick Berlin from John Hopkins University of Medicine completed several other
studies opposed to the claim that having same-sex parents makes the child more susceptible to
becoming a homosexual and concluded If the sexual orientation of the parents was what would
determine the sexual orientation of the children, then presumably we wont have so many gay
children growing up in heterosexual households (Sioco). While simple, Berlins perspective on
this issue makes sense. With adoption rights instilled, gay couples can have a family and be
treated like any other couple.
Finally, gay couples would receive health benefits if same-sex marriage was recognized.
Benefits provided to every straight, married couple get neglected for gay ones. The gap between
gay and straight couples is noted when same sex couples in long-term, committed relationships
pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married straight couples
(Solmonese 3). Hospital visitation and social security are benefits often denied to same-sex
couples. Spousal care also plays a vital role in the fight for gay health benefits. Many companies
around the country blindly encourage this form of separation. While straight couples would
receive coverage for their spouse if they were to get sick, most employers do not provide
coverage to life partners of gay and lesbian employees (Solmonese 3). Not only would a sick
spouse not be able to work, they also would not be able to receive health insurance needed to pay
for treatments at an affordable cost if their own coverage could not provide for them.

Chase 4

One of the most common reasons that people tend to be against gay marriage deals with
the issue that they believe homosexuality is a sin and a choice one makes. Most outspoken
protestors against homosexuality tend to be conservative, religious individuals. Firstly, the idea
that homosexuality is a choice is slowly being proved false, as scientific evidence has begun to
surface stating that, a region of the X chromosome Xq28 had an impact on male sexuality, as
did a stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 (Molloy 1). While this evidence only currently supports
male homosexuality, it is a large step in proving that homosexuality is not a simple choice as
once thought. On the issue of homosexuality being a sin, those opposed tend to use bible verses
as their proof for condemnation. However, homosexuality is briefly mentioned in only six or
seven of the Bible's 31,173 verses (Shore 1). Additionally, many of the passages and verses
containing rules of loving ones neighbor are somehow left out of the conversation when it comes
to the topic of homosexuality. Another issue arising from the bible about homosexuality deals
with possible mistranslation of language. An example of this is Romans 1:26-27: "Their women
exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural
intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another." The translation issue
presented here is the original Greek term para physin, which has been translated unnatural; it
should read atypical or unusual. This term had a widespread popular meaning. It is this meaning
that informs Paul's writing. It carries no ethical condemnation. (Shore 1). While no individual
may be able to give a complete and definitive answer as to what the bible originally intended for
homosexuality to be treated as, there is as much proof to call homosexuality a sin as there is not
to.
Ultimately, individual state governments must begin to recognize same-sex marriage as
an equal partnership. While this topic cannot be tackled on a federal level, individual states have

Chase 5

the power to change their own laws to become more accepting of other lifestyles. Once America
is able to overcome the view that homosexuality is a negative thing, our country would finally be
a more open and accepting place to live.