Gay Rights Today

Nowadays, gay marriage has nearly become the most challenging and controversial issue in many European, American, and even Eastern States. Politicians themselves are often reluctant to officialise their personal belief. To me, it is a citizen’s duty to forge one’s own opinion on the matter, and I am personally for the legalization of gay marriage. I think this choice takes part in shaping a State’s policy on equality and freedom, especially given the arguments held against it. Though, I slightly doubt that “the institution of marriage” is the most accurate angle to tackle the problem.

In the U.S., in Great Britain or in France, gay marriage has turned into a legal matter and should thus not be debated as a social or moral issue. From a legal point of view, all men and women are equal in front of the law. The French Declaration of Human Rights - which held a great role in the foundation of the U.S.A. and is still regarded today as fundamental in Human Rights issues around the world- states “equality” in its very first article. Marriage is a legal contract between two free-willing people who want to be bound with each other and before the State: sexual preferences are private and should not meddle with this public commitment.

My personal lack of faith in this social ritual that are marriages and weddings would be the only reason preventing me from being in favour of gay marriage. But having the choice to use a right according to your personal belief is precisely a part of the definition of freedom that law should protect and not restrain : as for now, gay people do not have this choice at all.

Moreover, many arguments against gay marriage are based on moral or religious principles that cannot be taken into account in States where State and Church are separated. But homosexuality remains a taboo in many religions and countries. The Iranian President caused a stir when he declared that there were “no homosexuals in Iran” during a speech at the University of Columbia. To bestow gay people the right to marry would immediately raise the question of having children for many Christians who think as marriage as the key step to building a family, as well as for many non-believers. But isn’t it the State’s role to forestall social changes? In 2008, New Hampshire’s governor –even though he was personally against it- passed three bills legalizing gay marriage in the State, clearly spelling out that religious institutions would not have to officiate or provide any services in gay marriages. So, it seems possible to respect everyone’s rights in the process of legalizing gay marriage.

Finally, it seems to me that marriage may not be the most urgent right to fight for. Isn’t marriage more and more questioned anyway, with the spiralling rate of divorce? Gay people used to be banned from political life, and are still suffering from discrimination in various ways. The U.S. Army which makes no sexual preference distinction in its files is facing more and more cases of soldiers being badgered, isolated or humiliated if they are “suspected” of being homosexuals by their co-workers or superiors; a man even committed suicide last year because of the pressure he was under.

The question of the right for gay couples to adopt is also at stake, or will be as soon as gay marriage is legalized. Experts have not yet come to an agreement on knowing if a child’s balance would be the least influenced or deeply threatened with two mothers or two fathers instead of the traditional nuclear family. Here lies the very difference with the case of marriage: it is not only a legal problem.