President Barack Obama's parents, Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr., married in Hawaii in 1961. Their marriage was atypical for the times, as Dunham was white and Obama was black. By 1961, 22 states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The presidential product of their relationship, however, is a slap in the face to anyone who ever opposed interracial marriage. Nevertheless, nearly 50 years later, marriage equality is still denied to millions of Americans - a horrific assault on human dignity.
The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman; only marriages that fit this description can be recognized at the federal level today. All marriages of the same-sex, performed in states where it is legal, are denied numerous federal marriage benefits received by their opposite-sex counterparts - even though the American Psychological Association argues that sexuality is not a choice. Denying people the opportunity to marry the same sex is wrong.
Marriage inequality is something this nation has fostered before: The ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), for example, legalized interracial marriage in all fifty states. Now the same arguments used to attack interracial marriage are being employed against same-sex marriage. Opponents of interracial marriage claimed such a union was contrary to God's wishes, would lead to the destruction of society and was unnatural. Sound familiar?
But interracial marriage was not the only other time this country dealt with the question of marriage equality. Much earlier in America's history, black people could not even marry other black people. As slaves, they were property and afforded no legitimate rights to marriage.
The denial of marriage rights for same-sex couples is an assault on the separation of church and state. Although strong support of same-sex relationships does come from some religious communities, arguments employed against same-sex marriage are often religiously based. Moreover, marriage does not have to be performed in a church and can purely be a contract with the state.
When it comes to contracts, civil unions do not suffice for same-sex couples. Civil unions can only be established by states, and many states, along with the federal government, do not recognize same-sex civil unions. The numerous federal benefits granted through marriage do not apply to civil unions. Additionally, even if civil unions were endowed with the same rights as marriage, the issue of "separate, but equal" emerges. Having a separate institution for same-sex couples is inherently discriminatory.
Some argue that the traditional purpose of marriage is to raise a family and that same-sex couples are both unable and unfit to have children. Yet does this mean infertile couples should not marry because they can never have children on their own? Furthermore, some couples choose not to have children, yet their marriages are still legitimate. The argument that children must be raised by one father and one mother is irrelevant. America has a large number of single parent households that raise children. Besides, the APA has proven that children raised in same-sex households are just as healthy as children raised in opposite-sex households. This is because, surprisingly enough, what creates a healthy and happy child is not that parents of both genders raise her, but rather that the child is shown love.
When it comes down to it, the debate over same-sex marriage is not about God or the traditional purpose of marriage. The debate over same-sex marriage is about love. Love is the most powerful, most revolutionary emotion that we have been afforded as human-beings. Love is the one tool that can never do wrong. Love is what keeps us sane in an increasingly hectic world. To love and be loved in return is at the heart of what it means to be human. When you deny the rights of same-sex couples to express love, you are in fact denying their very humanity.
Denying the humanity of an entire segment of the population does not sit well with the foundational ideas of America. This country was created to embolden and to protect the rights of man. The very creation of America was about guaranteeing the rights that we all have, rights afforded by no factor other than our own existence as humans. One of these natural rights is undeniably the right that all humans have to marry whom they love.
Just as interracial marriage was finally legalized in 1967, same-sex marriage must also be legalized in this country. Marriage equality is about nothing other than protecting the inherent right to love and protecting the universal dignity we all share, as humans. Chief Justice Earl Warren gets right to the heart of it in his ruling in Loving v. Virginia and states: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Jamie Dailey's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.dailey@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 2 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
