Gay Marriage

On the topic of gay marriage, before last night I did not really have an opinion either way. I, like many others, view marriage as the ultimate showing of commitment. I never really thought about any underlying purposes that existed. However, last night in my Indiana Constitutional law class we had a very interesting discussion about Morrison v. Sadler (Ind.App.200) which basically addressed the question of: “does the Indiana Constitution contain a core value (fundamental right) for same sex couples to marry?” The court decided that they did NOT have a protected right as it currently stands but the legislature is free to change that if it wishes.  After reading and discussing the courts rationale I thought about marriage from a completely different view point, I now have an opinion.

               I will try to give the main points as concisely as I can.  The court said the key question to be answered is:  “whether the recognition of same-sex marriage would promote all of the same state interests the opposite-sex marriage does, including the interest in marital procreation. If it would not, limiting same-sex marriage is rational and acceptable.” They court also said that same-sex couples that become parents by artificial reproduction methods have invested so much time, money, and emotions. Furthermore, they planned and could foresee becoming parents. Given that the states’ interest is that children be raised in a stable environment.  the time, effort, commitment, emotions, and expenses invested by same-sex couples to adopt or conceive a child, suggests that they may be fully capable in providing that stable environment WITH OUT THE PROTECTIONS OF MARRIAGE. 

               “The institution of marriage not only encourages oppo-sex couples to form a stable environment for the natural procreation of a child, but it also encourages them to stay together and raise a child together if there is a change in plans.”  “Marriage encourages oppo-sex couples to remain in such a relationship if a child arrives unexpectedly.” The court also said that “the State could reasonably decide that by encouraging oppo-sex couples to marry, thereby assuming legal and financial obligations, the children born from such a relationship will have better opportunities to be nurtured and raised by two parents within long term, committed relationships, which society has viewed as advantageous for children.”

               Because same-sex couples cannot procreate, allowing them to marry will do little to advance that State’s goal of responsible procreation within long term, committed relationships. There was much more said but that’s a basic summary. The court concluded that it was not for them to decide who is allowed to marry; rather it is up to the legislature to decide.  Therefore since same sex-couples clearly devote a great deal of time, emotions, and a high level of commitment, they do not need the encouragement to do so that marriage attempts to promote to oppo-sex couples.