Should same-sex marriage be legalized?

Social problems are nothing new, and in the early days of man they were probably solved by the biggest dude who had a big stick. But even way back then, the survival of the species was probably taken into account often enough that a system of law and order became established, and it was evidently good enough to keep serious conflicts at a level that allowed early man to eventually become modern man.

It is likely that the line of authority that was natural and beneficial to the earliest families of human beings was slowly adopted by small groups of related families, and a measure of authority was given to the wisest, strongest, and most able leaders among them, which encouraged cooperation and led to more efficiency and progress. In other words, early society was built on the same principles that helped family members live in peace with each other, which also allowed a measure of progress to result. Early societies were established on the principles of functionalism — the idea that whatever works toward the benefit of the larger group is adopted as the law of the land.

As mankind accumulated more knowledge and experience, better ways of doing things were used in the daily lives of most people, and after ages of gaining knowledge and experience, agriculture was established, which led to the establishment of cities. In a manner of speaking, “Man made the city, and the city made man,” which is to say, city life redefined the role of man. Many problems of survival were solved, and the standard of living increased because city life provided leisure time, more personal interactions, and education. Agriculture increased the food supply, which enabled the population to grow, and that led to an industrial revolution that separated people into different levels of social status and created a whole new kind of social problems involving class conflict.

In addition to coping with personal problems and physical survival, the less fortunate members of society were subjected to a new set of social rules to live by, because the functional principles of the past were not doing so well in an industrialized world. The leaders of industry were able to manipulate the major institutions of society to such an extent that common people had to form unions and find other means of reform in order to maintain some semblance of equality in the new society. Karl Marx pointed out that our social structure has changed from a functional system that is concerned for the good of all, to a struggle between the rich and the poor, which he called the bourgeoisie and the proletariat — those who own the means of production, and the “others” who are exploited without mercy. There has been a difficult struggle to survive, but in recent years the bourgeoisie is winning. However, there will be a critical point in which a drastic change will take place, but in the meantime, our government and social institutions will continue to make some small gains at the micro-level of society, where individuals continue to stand up for their personal rights.

Different religions, politics, and points of view put people into conflict with each other, and the clannish idea of “us versus them” has taken root dividing all manner of ordinary people into different groups. Many of the conflicts are centered around the same religious beliefs that once offered comfort and hope that a better future was possible, but it seems the beliefs became bogged down in different ideologies. As a society, we have made much progress, such as allowing religious freedom, and we abolishing slavery, as well as sex discrimination — to some extent — and homophobia has come to be seen as discrimination against the gay community. However, although we tolerate gay and lesbian people, homophobia has led to the problem of same-sex marriage — rather the lack of its legality — which denies same-sex couples the benefits of marriage that are guaranteed by the government. Legalizing same-sex marriage would enable us, as a society, to claim a truer level of social equality. The U.S. Supreme Court may eventually settle this question.

The naysayers claim that not all change is positive, and they have a litany of reasons why they think as they do, beginning with the present definition of marriage, which is a contract between a man and a woman. The conservative elements of society also claim that same-sex couples cannot produce children, which is one of the primary functions of marriage, and even if they adopt children, kids need both a father and a mother. Their list goes on, including the idea that homosexuals don’t deserve the benefits of marriage because their behavior is promiscuous, and legalizing gay marriage would cause negative consequences that lead to broken relationships, abused spouses, and sex crimes, as well as undermine the concept that a man’s sexual desires should be directed toward his wife — the list goes on.

On the flip side of this argument, the liberals say it is the legal, not the religious dimension of marriage that is being discussed, because gay couples need a legal document in order to benefit from federal laws concerning nursing homes, pensions, inheritance, and Medicare. They also point out that legalizing gay marriage would save the government lots of money by reducing public assistance, as well as Supplemental Social Security Income and disability payments. As for the children who grow up in same-sex households; the qualities that help kids grow into responsible adults is a loving, stable home environment, which is as much a part of gay marriage as any other marriage.

In order to honestly see this dilemma from an outside point of view, we need to look at the whole of society and try to determine what is in the best interest of mankind. It is likely we can all agree that marriage is good, and nobody is likely to argue that any outside person has a right to choose a marriage partner for someone else, at least not in the U.S. In the U.S., we have individual rights, but we are also obligated by law to respect the rights of others. We have freedom of religion, but religion is, or ought to be a private matter. “Live and let live” is a generally accepted rule to live by that we can all respect, but there are always questions about where we must draw the line in certain particular cases.

We all have rights, however, our rights are always subject to the overall good of the larger group. An ideal solution to same-sex marriage would be an explanation of individual freedom that is acknowledged and agreed to by everyone. Our U.S. system of government continues to establish a way of life that incorporates such an attitude into our daily life, but people are slow to change their accepted beliefs, even though their beliefs may sometimes be in conflict with the good of the larger group.

Perhaps instead of thinking about our personal place in society, we should consider the basic purpose of our existence in the overall scheme of things, but that takes us back into religious beliefs that have come to be more divisive than unifying. Although there is an element of truth in all organized religions, it is up to individual people to interpret their beliefs and determine their own “place” in the scheme of things, according to their own level of intelligence and emotional maturity. Those individuals who come to “know thyself” in a truer light have no problem with learning to “live and let live,” regardless of who lives with whom, whether it’s next door or across the country. Instead of being affected by our neighbors’ personal business, it is likely that our lives will be impacted by a prolonged struggle between the bourgeois and the proletariat.

Art Carney lives in Wasilla.