Advocacy of Same-Sex Marriage in a Political Campaign

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that no state will “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Countless times throughout history however, states have done just that, forcing the Supreme Court to step in and correct injustices. Americans have witnessed states discriminate against people of color, women, and many feel it is once again happening with members of the LGBT community. Although many same-sex couples would like to marry in order to have their relationship validated and recognized by the federal government, the primary problem is that homosexual couples are being denied federal and state benefits that are available to heterosexual couples, leaving many to believe they are not receiving uniform treatment. Due to the fact that same-sex couples are not being granted equal protection under the law and public support for the cause is building rapidly, the most logical policy to pursue during a campaign would be to legalize same-sex marriage at the federal level. 

If running for office, same-sex marriage advocacy makes sense because support is building yearly. A Bloomberg National Poll from September of 2013 showed that 55% of those polled support same-sex marriage, while only 36% said they oppose the measure. A little over a year ago in July of 2012, only 46% supported same-sex marriage, amounting to a 9% jump in support in only one year (“Law and Civil Rights,” 2013). The other potential issues do not have nearly as much support as the legalization of same-sex marriage. For example, 63% of Americans are still in favor of the death penalty (Saad, 2013), and only 45% support the public option (Balz & Cohen, 2009). Young people have proven to be loyal supporters of same-sex marriage as well, and they are of course the next generation and will shape the future of the country, so courting their support is important. 

Same-sex marriage is also the option that runs the least risk of alienating certain groups. Supporting the public option would essentially lose the vote, and more importantly, the campaign donations of insurance companies because the government would be siphoning away business. The war on drugs could cause an increase in crime if certain drugs were declared legal. Death penalty support still remains relatively high amongst those who believe in punitive justice. Enacting the DREAM Act could theoretically make it harder for some Americans to obtain employment. Tax policy reform would lose the support of business owners and executives who feel they are paying an unfair share of their income. The other options (reunification of foster children back to abusive parents, mental health care for prisoners, and trying children as adults) are also relatively controversial issues as well. However, same-sex marriage affects no other group in society. It simply grants gay couples the right to marry, allowing for the candidate to gain support from those who support the legalization of same-sex marriage without losing the support of other voting blocs. 

The problem that needs to be addressed is the fact that states are still permitted to deny same-sex couples benefits that are available to opposite-sex couples. Some of the most important benefits that are denied to same-sex couples include the inability to sign up for a joint health insurance policy, not having the right to inherit a shared house if one partner dies and there is no will, not having protection under the law from testifying against a spouse, and perhaps most importantly, same-sex couples are unable to make decisions for their partner if an accident occurs because they are not considered next of kin (Wolfson, n.d.). These are just a few of the many rights same-sex couples are not granted that are available to those who are in a traditional marriage, showing there is an unequal treatment under the law. Since many states have already legalized gay marriage, the issue would have to be at the national level, thereby ensuring that all citizens are granted equal rights, not just those in certain states. By enacting a policy that guarantees equal treatment for all, it fits into the larger social context of equal rights in the United States, much like the abolition of slavery and the end of segregation. Society does not condone discrimination based on age, race, religion, or sex, and it should not discriminate based on sexual orientation either. 

Historically, same-sex marriage has been a hot-button issue in American politics. Opponents have argued that marriage is to be defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. The federal government recognized this position when President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in 1996. After many believed Hawaii would allow same-sex marriage, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, declaring that states need not honor same-sex marriages from other states. A number of questions were left unanswered, such as whether gay or lesbian couples file a joint state income tax return and separate federal income tax returns if their state recognizes same-sex marriage. It also left many wondering if a couple married in one state would receive work benefits if he or she were employed in a neighboring state (Ruskay-Kidd, 1997). Proponents of same-sex marriage advocated for the law’s repeal because they felt it was discriminatory. 

Statistics suggest there are a large number of couples being denied benefits. According to the most recent Census, there are approximately 594,391 gay couples in the United States, amounting to 1.2 million people who are in a partnership with a member of the same sex (Alper, 2013). If any of the roughly 1.2 million gay people in a relationship live in a state that has not legalized same-sex marriage, they are ineligible for many of the 1,138 benefits available to married couples (“An overview of federal rights and protections granted to married couples,” n.d.). As evidenced by the numbers, the policy would affect a significant portion of the American population if enacted.  

Financially, same-sex couples could benefit greatly from access to benefits available to opposite-sex couples. A New York Times report concluded that a same-sex couple could lose as much as $500,000 during their lifetime because they are denied various benefits, both from the state and employers (Badgett, 2013). That is an astronomical amount, especially when considering if affects over half a million gay couples throughout the nation. There has been some progress in the past few years to rectify the situation, but there is still much work to be done before uniform benefits are available to all. 

In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The decision was a landmark case for the gay rights movement, as it finally allows for the federal government to provide benefits to those who have entered into a same-sex marriage (Terbush, 2013). President Obama was in favor of the decision, as he had already deemed the law to be unconstitutional and chose not to defend it in court (Ambinder, 2011). The decision solved many of the issues gay rights activists have been fighting for, but still leaves much to be desired. 

Most importantly, gay couples are now eligible for federal benefits if married. This means any couple that is married, regardless of whether they are a same-sex couple, will be able to file a joint federal tax return, receive Social Security benefits, and receive the same federal employment benefits as anyone else (Guillen, 2013). However, the same cannot be said at the state level. Some states, including Oklahoma, have denied same-sex couples military benefits even after the federal government directed them not to do so (Ohlheiser, 2013). As a result, there are still married couples being discriminated against in certain areas of the country by states that oppose the measures. 

The other problem with the decision is that it only forces states to recognize marriages that were conducted out of state, but does not force the states to conduct the marriages themselves. Therefore, it can be very difficult for some couples to enter into wedlock if they are in an area of the country that is not adjacent to a state that issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples. For example, a same-sex couple living in Florida would have to travel to Maryland to reach the closest state where they could marry, and a couple in Texas would have to visit either California or Iowa. Only 15 of the 50 states currently issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and with most of them being concentrated in the northeast (with two exceptions in both the Midwest and west coast) it is still difficult for many couples to reach a state where they can legally marry. 

Coupling the fact that many states are denying same-sex couples benefits with the reality that most partners are hundreds of miles away from the nearest courthouse that issues marriages licenses, it would be best to propose a policy that forces all states to issue marriage licenses and grant the same benefits to homosexual couples that are granted to heterosexual couples. There are three options for enacting the policy, each with varying degrees of efficacy. The first would be for Congress to pass a resolution that declares same-sex marriage legal in all states. Although this would require all 50 states to comply with the law and grant marriage licenses, there is also the chance that the Supreme Court could later nullify the act. Later sessions of Congress could also repeal the measure if the balance of power in both houses shifts, making it the least effective of the three available options. 

Secondly, the candidate could press for a lawsuit to be filed claiming the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is being violated because some couples are granted the right to marry in their home state while others are not. With the Supreme Court recently declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, the idea of the court ruling that states must issue licenses is not implausible. A Supreme Court decision also carries more weight than an Act of Congress, but it is also not a definitive solution. In the past, the court has revisited previous decisions and reversed their ruling. It does not happen often, but is not unprecedented, such as when the court overturned the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson after they ruled that the idea of “separate but equal” was unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education (Sanders, 1995). Again, Supreme Court decisions are not often overturned, but have been in the past, making the plan far from infallible. 

Lastly, the most effective option would be to enact an amendment to the United States Constitution. By leaving Congress powerless to repeal the amendment, it would ensure the law remains in effect for an indefinite amount of time. The Supreme Court is also unable to nullify an amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, the only way for same-sex marriage to be declared illegal would be for the amendment to be repealed, which has only happened once in the history of the United States when the 18th Amendment was repealed by the passage of the 21st Amendment. Although a constitutional amendment the most effective of the three options, it is also the hardest to achieve. Passage of a constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of both Houses of Congress to vote in favor of the amendment and then three-fourths of the state legislatures to also ratify the measure. Considering only 15 states have legalized gay marriage, it seems highly unlikely that three-fourths of the state’s would ratify the amendment, but the fact remains that it would be the most definitive solution. 

Although option three is the most effective, all three solutions would effectively solve the problem for the time being. By allowing for same-sex couples to access employer, state, and federal benefits, the policy would provide equal protection under the law to gay and lesbian couples. In order to prevent any discrimination, the federal government would have to force states to comply with the ruling and provide state benefits to same-sex couples, with the threat of punitive punishment for those states who attempt to avert the law, such as the recent situation in Oklahoma. 

America is divided on the issue of same-sex marriage, and even though support is growing, the policy would likely be met with some criticism. The primary groups in favor of same-sex marriage are younger Americans, women, and Caucasians. Those between the ages of 18 and 29 are ardent supporters of the issue, with 81% saying they support same-sex marriage in a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll (Cohen, 2013). The under-30 vote is an ever-growing portion of the electorate, with under-30 voters comprising 19% of the voters during the 2012 presidential election (Carpenter, 2012). Representing the next generation of Americans, this group will be pivotal in pushing the issue forward as opposition wanes. More than half of the women and whites polled also said they support gay marriage in a recent Gallup poll (Saad, 2013). 

On the other side of the same-sex marriage debate, the primary opposition comes from older Americans, African Americans, and men (Brumbaugh, Sanchez, Nock, & Wright, 2008). Those who are older than 55 are generally opposed to the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states, as evidenced by the fact that only 38% said they would vote for a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage (Saad, 2013). Older Americans have considerable pull in the American political debate, as powerful lobbying firms such as the AARP represent the elderly. When it comes to older Americans, the gay rights movement has two options: either find a way to make older Americans relate to the idea of same-sex marriage by showing there are members of their families who are affected by the problem, or wait for them to die out and be replaced by a more receptive generation. 

In addition to the aforementioned groups, many religious organizations oppose same-sex marriage as well. Protestants in particular are skeptical of the idea of same-sex marriage. Only 38% of Protestants surveyed and 23% who attend church weekly said they support the idea of gay marriage in a Gallup poll conducted in July of 2013 (Saad, 2013). This is a view held not only in the United States, but also around the world (Edwards, 2007). There is fear amongst many in the religious community that the government will force churches to conduct gay marriage services, which some argue is against their religious beliefs and impedes on their First Amendment right to practice freely. This opposition is due to the fact that many who practice religion believe marriage is a sacred institution that should be between one man and one woman. One solution to court the support of the religious on the issue would be to declare that churches have the right to marry only whom they wish, but courthouses will be able to marry anyone, regardless of sex. After all, a marriage conducted in a church is not a civil union anyway, but simply a religious ceremony that does not bind the two partners legally, which is what same-sex couples are hoping to achieve.  

One fact that holds true is Americans are more conducive to supporting gay marriage if they are exposed to homosexuals more frequently. A study found that those who had gay family or co-workers were more likely to oppose a state constitutional amendment that limits marriage to a union between a male and a female. Eighty percent of those surveyed who had no interpersonal contact with gays and lesbians said they would support the amendment, while only 66% of those who had interpersonal contact with gays and lesbians would support the amendment (Barth, Overby, & Huffmon, 2009). The study shows that as more Americans are exposed to the idea of gay marriage, it erodes prejudices and hate, making it important for members of the LGBT community to “come out” to their friends and family instead of hiding their sexuality, because revealing their sexuality ultimately furthers the cause for same-sex rights. 

To say real people would be affected on a daily basis by the implementation of the policy would be a gross understatement. As previously stated, there are over half a million same-sex couples in the United States, and over eight million adults who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transsexual in the United States (Gates, 2011). These are people volunteering in the military, working at neighborhood establishments, and serving the government. The impact would be enormous and would not just affect a select few, but literally millions of citizens across the country. 

By addressing various issues at the federal and state level, the policy would solve all of the problems currently plaguing the LGBT community. It would make life simpler by allowing for same-sex couples to file joint tax returns, which would also provide the opportunity to take advantage of various tax credits that are currently unavailable. It also provides access to better and more affordable healthcare, as couples would then be able to enroll both partners into an employee healthcare plan. What is perhaps the most important issue would also be resolved, which is same-sex partners not being considered next of kin. By denying this right, it prevents one partner from making medical decisions for the other and also prohibits hospital visitation rights. 

Other problems that would be solved with the implementation of the policy include housing, immigration, and inheritance issues. Many couples are denied loans necessary to purchase a home because they are not legally married, or are not eligible for tax credits to help subsidize the purchase. Also, unlike heterosexual couples, a citizen engaged in a same-sex relationship is not able to sponsor his or her partner for United States citizenship if they are not able to marry. Lastly, it is important for same-sex couples to have a will in place, because if an unexpected tragedy were to occur, shared property is not automatically passed on to the partner like it is with heterosexual couples. In short, the policy would affect millions of people in numerous ways. 

If enacted properly, there would be few ways to improve the policy. Assuming a constitutional amendment were enacted stating that couples could not be discriminated against in any way, regardless of sex, there would be few questions left unanswered. However, in the current state, there is still much to accomplish. Although states are now forced to recognize out-of-state marriage licenses, there have been some states that have denied benefits available at the state level to same-sex couples, as previously stated. Another situation that has arisen is the state of Texas refusing to allow same-sex couples to divorce (Lithwick & West, 2013). If a couple is married in a state where gay marriage is legal and moves to one where it is not, that state can deny the couple the right to divorce.  It also presents a complicated situation, because the couple cannot travel back to the original state to divorce because there is a residency requirement, meaning the couple would have to permanently move back to the state where the marriage license was granted to establish residency and proceed with the divorce. 

As a result of situations such as the one just described, an amendment that prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation is an absolute necessity. This is due to the fact that even though couples are legally allowed to marry and travel to another state now, those states that oppose same-sex marriage are still finding ways to discriminate against same-sex couples. The situation parallels the fight that took place following the Civil War in many ways. States that were unwilling concede the abolition of slavery were eventually forced to capitulate following the war, but then turned their efforts to enacting various discriminatory “Jim Crow” laws aimed at preventing minorities from voting and enjoying the rights white residents in the state were privy to. Essentially, the same thing is happening now. States did not want to allow gay marriage, but were effectively forced to honor marriage licenses by the Supreme Court. As a result, they have now focused their efforts on finding ways to deny married couples state benefits and making their lives miserable by still treating them like second-class citizens. 

In conclusion, the gay rights debate is sure to rage on until some sort of definitive solution is reached. Incremental progress has certainly been made over the past few decades – with major developments occurring in the last year – but there are still many aspects that need to be corrected for supporters to be satisfied. The fact remains that the United States Constitution guarantees all Americans an equal protection under the law, yet some Americans are ineligible for tax breaks, immigration rights, and even the right to divorce due to their sexual orientation. This is the basis of the same-sex marriage argument: that members of the LGBT community are being treated differently from members of the heterosexual community based solely on whom he or she chooses to love.

With support the highest it has been for the issue in the history of the country, it makes sense to endorse the policy of same-sex marriage as a candidate for office. Not only would it provide access to the all-important young vote, but would also pick up support from all demographics, as opposition is waning even in the most conservative political groups in the country. While the other policies have a potential to alienate large groups of society, same-sex marriage only runs the risk of alienating certain portions of the elderly and religious populations. Not only does the policy make sense from a campaign standpoint, but also from a human rights standpoint, as the ultimate goal of the gay rights movement is not to gain preferential treatment under the law, but simply to enjoy the rights every heterosexual couple is afforded. 

References

Alper, Gideon I. (2013). Gay marriage facts and statistics. Retrieved from http://www.galperlaw.com/gay-law-report/gay-marriage-facts-statistics/

An overview of federal rights and protections granted to married couples (n.d.). In Human Rights Campaign. Retrieved from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

Ambinder, Marc (2011). Obama won’t go to court over defense of marriage act. Retrieved from http://www.nationaljournal.com/obama-won-t-go-to-court-over-defense-of-marriage-act-20110223

Badgett, M.V. Lee (2013). The economic benefits of gay marriage. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/03/the-e.html

Balz, Dan, & Cohen, Jon (2009). Public option gains support. Retrieved from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-10-20/politics/36774589_1_public-option- public-plan-americans-favor

Barth, Jay, Overby, L. Marvin, & Huffmon, Scott H. (2009). Community context, personal contact, and support for an anti-gay rights referendum. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 355-365.

Brumbaugh, Stacey M., Sanchez, Laura A., Nock, Steven L., & Wright, James D. (2008). Attitudes toward gay marriage in states undergoing marriage law transformation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 345-359.

Carpenter, Zoe (2012). Despite concerns, young voters tuned in and turned out in 2012. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/171111/despite-concerns-young-voters-tuned-and-turned-out-2012#

Cohen, Jon (2013). Gay marriage support hits new high in post-abc poll. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/gay-marriage-support-hits-new-high-in-post-abc-poll/

Edwards, Jane (2007). ‘Marriage is sacred’: The religious right’s arguments against ‘gay marriage’ in australia. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 9, 247-261.

Gates, Gary J. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender?. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/

Guillen, Lina (n.d.). The doma decision allows same-sex married couples to receive benefits. Retrieved from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.html

Law and civil rights (2013). In Bloomberg National Poll. Retrieved from http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Lithwick, Dahlia, & West, Sonja (2013). Texas hold ‘em. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/

Ohlheiser, Abby (2013). Oklahoma becomes the 4th state to block some military gay marriage benefits. Retrieved from http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/09/oklahoma-becomes-4th-state-block-some-military-gay-marriage-benefits/69536/

Ruskay-Kidd, Scott (1997). The defense of marriage act and the overextension of congressional authority. Columbia Law Review, 97, 1435-1482. 

Saad, Lydia (2013). In u.s., 52% back law to legalize gay marriage in 50 states. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay- marriage-states.aspx

Saad, Lydia (2013). U.S. death penalty support stable at 63%. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/159770/death-penalty-support-stable.aspx

Sanders, Francine (1995). Brown v. board of education: An empirical reexamination of its effects on federal district courts. Law & Society Review, 29, 731-756.

Terbush, Jon (2013). Supreme court finds defense of marriage act unconstitutional. Retrieved from http://theweek.com/article/index/246124/supreme-court-finds-defense-of-marriage-\act-unconstitutional

Wolfson, Evan (n.d.). Protections denied to same-sex couples and their kids. Retrieved from http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson