Making an argument in favor of gay marriage in public is an act that is bound simultaneously win you friends and bitter enemies as the debate is so split and usually so heated on both sides. Still, of the debates and constant arguments that continue to polarize political and social life in the United States is that which addresses the question as to whether homosexuals have the right to marry legally and if so, how gay marriage should be recognized once it is allowed. Although many other developed countries have adopted legislation that makes provisions for gay couples to enjoy the same rights and privileges of married life that are afforded to heterosexual couples and have protected the right to gay marriage, the policies and practices promoted by the federal government of the United States remains an “exception on the world scene” (Adam, 2003, p. 259). It would appear then, in terms of coming to an understanding of the innocuous nature of gay marriage in the United States, other countries have realized what the United States has yet to understand.

The argument against gay marriage is often a flawed one that is based on highly nuanced understandings of the law. First, marriage, whether it is gay marriage or traditional, is a union and a contract between two people who love one another and are committed to making a life together, not only for the benefit of themselves, but for the good of their community (Rauch, 2005). Second, the prevailing laws of our land, namely that which dictates the separation of church and state, should support the passage of legislation making provisions for gay marriage, as the religious arguments taking away rights that are used against the union of homosexual couples should not be of interest or value to the establishment and interpretation of state or federal laws. Third, the fundamental values upon which the nation is built clearly affirm that equality and the pursuit of happiness are the rights and privileges of all citizens, irrespective of their sexual preference or orientation. For these reasons, the United States should enact federal legislation that permits, not prohibits, gay marriage. Not allowing gay marriage in the United States violates many of the fundamental principles this country is based on.

One of the compelling reasons why the federal government should pass legislation permitting gay marriage is that marriage itself, whether or not it is gay marriage specifically, is empirically proven to be a social stabilizer (Sampson & Laub, 1992) and can be an incredibly valuable societal tool. Although opponents of gay marriage who base their arguments against gay marriage on the grounds that marriage serves a purely procreative function, the fact of the matter is, writes Rauch (2005), that marriage is about much more than conceiving, giving birth to, and to the idea of gay couples raising children and involves a complex host of many other functions that can even be unrelated to raising children for some. While he acknowledges that the institution of marriage has “changed nearly beyond recognition in recent years,” Rauch (2005) contends that the ideal marriage, traditional or gay marriage serves both to deepen and to strengthen the ties among individuals in society, and the ability to fulfill this function has nothing to do with sex or gender, and everything to do with purpose and commitment (p. 15). Thus allowing gay marriage would help communities and nation as a whole on these grounds.

As this research about the nature of relationships between those wishing to become the first on the list of gay marriages, it is clear that both heterosexual and homosexual couples are capable of fulfilling such purpose and commitment, and both types of couples are equally vulnerable to notbeing able to fulfill such purpose and commitment, as evidenced by the astronomically high divorce rate in this country (Rauch, 2005). In other words, the claim that allowing gay marriages would serve to weaken is not valid since marriage is just not about the single act of procreation, but in modern times involves far more.