Marriage is much more than merely a commitment to love one another. Marriage entitles financial responsibility, as well as authorized financial benefits. It is the institution that provides automatic legal protection for the spouse, including medical visitation, inheritance of a deceased spouse's property, as well as pension and other rights. Society has become accustom to what they believe is “normal” by their traditions and religious beliefs. Many people believe that same-sex marriage is not “normal.” The simple fact is that banning same-sex marriage is discrimination. Marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice. Therefore, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage. Same-sex unions must be legalized in the United States to ensure equality for all, recognize the validity of homosexual love and grant spousal rights for partners.

Throughout history homosexuals have been discriminated against. Minority groups have always bore the brunt of discrimination and social exclusion from mainstream society. The people of Jewish, African America

The United States was founded on the Constitution in which all men are created equal; A class of individuals cannot be denied the basic human and legal right of marriage due to their sexual preference. Banning same-sex marriage has already been declared a violation of the constitution in the state of Hawaii. The case began in 1991 when three same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses by the Hawaii Department of Health, brought a lawsuit to the state court against the director of the department. Hawaii law required couples wishing to marry to obtain a marriage license. New York Times reporter David Dunlap notes that while the marriage license did not explicitly prohibit same sex marriage at that time, it used terms of gender that clearly indicated that only heterosexual couples could marry (Crew par. 6). In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that a refusal to grant marriage licenses violated the state constitution (18). Even though the court found that the state of Hawaii’s constitution had discriminated against homosexuals, presently there have been no same-sex marriage licenses that have been issued anywhere in Hawaii nor the entire United States. On the other hand, A columnist acknowledges that one state court should not dictate marriage laws for the entire nation: “If gay marriages become legal in Hawaii, other states may have to recognize them, as well, because the U.S. Constitution requires each state to grant “full faith and credit” to the acts of other states” (Strasser par. 14). But, he argues, many states do not want to recognize same-sex unions, and should not be forced to do so by a few judges in Hawaii. Due to this case, the Defense of marriage bill was adopted by more than 30 states (Graff par. 34). This bill prevents homosexual marriage from ever being acknowledged in those states. Although some may believe it would be unfair for Hawaii to begin the process of recognizing same-sex marriage licenses, Article IV, Section One of the United States Constitution avers, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and proceedings of every other state”(Strasser par. 17). Therefore, regardless of whether or not certain individuals believe it is fair for one state to begin the process of same-sex marriage, the law is the law. Similarly, lawyers specializing in the constitutional and civil rights laws said the legislation could be fought in two ways: either by arguing that same-sex marriages must be allowed to “full faith and credit” clause requiring states to recognize the laws of other states (Trosino par. 7) or by using the constitution to argue “Equality for all”. The case is very similar to the ban of interracial marriage, which was declared unconstitutional just a few decades ago by the Supreme Court. Interracial marriage was struck down as a violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all persons the equal protection of the laws (19). Even though marriage should not be denied legally to gay and lesbian couples, matrimony between same-sex couples should be accepted socially. Lauren Sandler, a former editor for the New Republic magazine comments;

It is very difficult for some people to accept a change in things that differ from their everyday life and the way they were socialized. If those individuals could look at same-sex marriage with an open-mind they could see that they have been withholding a precious right that could socially benefit a large group of society. In the same manner, Professor Ramesh Ponnuru, of California Western School of Law, reveals; When her and her partner decided to have a commitment ceremony, they did so to express the love and caring that they felt for one another. To celebrate that love with their friends and family, and to express that love openly and with pride. “It angers me when others, who did not par

Some topics in this essay:
America Frum, Church Act, Cabin Club, Lauren Sandler, Rite Marriage, Montrose Houston, Supreme Court, United Constitution, Hispanic Asian, Professor Ponnuru, same-sex marriage, homosexual love, homosexual couples, marriage licenses, basic human, same-sex couples, gay couples, marriage legalized homosexual, valid heterosexual, heterosexual love, love valid, valid heterosexual love, same-sex marriage licenses, legalized homosexual love, same-sex marriage legalized,