Introduction
One of the most heated debates of our time entails same sex marriage. While many people point out different reasons for opposing such a marriage, others have equally many reasons for supporting it. This paper seeks to support same sex marriage in the limelight of increasing liberalism and human rights across the world. In addition, the paper will utilize various articles and scholarly sources to find grounds for supporting the argument.
Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage
At the outset, it is important to notice that the proposed constitutional amendments that seek to proscribe same sex marriage defy the very basic principles of which the constitution exists. The rationale is that the aim of a constitution is to protect human beings from possible violations of their rights.
This implies that a constitution ought to empower its people as opposed to disempowering them. The document accords people the power to protect their intrinsic rights. As such, an effort to amend it with the aim of criminalizing people is not only unconstitutional but also discriminatory to a cross section of the society. It contradicts the very foundation of human rights and inherent rights of human beings who now seem as though they are the subjects of draconian rules yet the reverse should be true.
By legalizing same sex marriages, opponents argue that it would be harmful to heterosexual marriages. How is that? Considering such countries such as Belgium and Netherlands where the relationships are legal, research has shown that conventional marriages have suffered no harmful effects from homosexual and lesbian marriages.
As such, legalization of same sex marriage does not imply the end of heterosexual marriages but it offers different people who have different sexual orientation a choice. This is without feeling discriminated in countries, which they belong.
Third, the government should not involve itself with such issues as sanctity and sacredness of the marriage institution. This in consideration of the fact that the government is a secular political institution and should not concern itself in making judgments about sanctity of social and religious institutions.
The rationale is that the argument that numerous critics put forward revolves around the sanctity of marriage borrowed heavily from Christianity. In secular nations, nobody (even the government) should have the right to dictate individual righteousness and sanctity.
Over and above, marriage institution should not denote a religious institution. This is because the country appreciates diversity and it should realize that numerous people have different backgrounds. Criticizing same sex marriages is a way of showing intolerance to different cultures and orientations. The proposed amendment seeks to draw its major support some sub sections of religion, which should not be the case in the contemporary world.
Critics point out that marriage institution entails more than just emotions and feelings. Nonetheless, banning people from expressing their emotions to the people they love just complicates the matter even more since there will be two categories of people in the country. Some people will not enjoy their freedoms and rights because of a seemingly primitive amendment. To this end, it is important for the government to halt its plans and find a progressive way to deal with the issue rather than hiding in the contexts of religion.
Conclusion
In sum, same sex marriages should continue to be legal. By banning them, the government will use the constitution to deny some of its people some fundamental rights. Besides, marriage is not a subset of religion.