Newsstands, television screens, and social media platforms are plastered with images of joyous same sex couples sharing a kiss or proudly waving a rainbow flag overhead. A celebratory heading in boldface commands attention amongst the sea of sensationalized celebrity news. Same sex marriage has just been legalized. The basic human right to wed can now be exercised by millions of couples. This very scene has unfolded in thirty-seven of fifty states here in America. Some would say that this is democracy working at its finest- states are implementing what is right for the people by the people. So what is the big deal? At its core, marriage between two consenting parties is an internationally recognized human right that is “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” (American Foundation for Equal Rights). Even so, countless couples in the U.S are denied the right to legally wed because democratic vote has rejected its lawfulness. Contrary to what those who champion democracy believe, marriage should not be an issue that the voting majority has the right to legalize. Instead, marriage is a right, similar to the right to life and security, given to one at birth and is far too fragile of an issue to fall into the hands of the voting public. I will argue that the basic human right to marriage should not under any circumstance be decided democratically but recognized as a birthright in accordance with international law. America, one of the largest democracies in the world, is seldom considered among major human rights-violating countries. A society whose laws, values, and resource expenditure are democratically decided on by its citizens is a stark improvement to other governmental systems around the world. A fair representation of the citizen’s values and opinions, however, it not accurately depicted come voting time. Prominent philosophers such as John Dewy champion a strong democracy and believe that all issues should be taken to vote and decided on by the people. He argues that democracy is the “necessity for the participation of every mature human being in formation of the values that regulate the living of men together”(Cahn 543). He believes that democracy is the expression of interests on the part of voters. While this sounds like a reasonable argument, the problem arises when issues, such as same sex marriage, a recognized human right, make their way to the polls. Treated as a rather benign matter, the public often overlooks the weight of their power. With voter turnout under 53% in the 2013 U.S presidential election, it becomes clear that even if an issue of this magnitude were placed on the ballot, the results of the vote are a far cry from accurately representing the views of the larger population(). As much as many proponents of democracy may like to believe that voter participation is an accurate representation of a society as a whole, research is quite clear that this is not the case. We must recognize that the happiness and fundamental rights of millions of Americans is unjustly in the hands of just over half of the population. We must understand that in human rights cases, voter majority is, at very least, an insufficient method to determine the lawfulness of a basic human right. Beyond the inadequate means used to decide the legality of same sex marriage, we must consider that the right to wed is an internationally recognized and constitutionally
…show more content…
They often cite same sex marriages as an encroachment on their religious convictions of what a ‘normal’ family is supposed to look like. What they fail to see, however, is that their values and opinions about same sex marriage should never infringe upon what is an already well- established human right that applies to all people. They must be cognizant to the notion that value opposition does not warrant the refusal of one’s freedom. To withhold one from exercising the right to marry is to violate the most basic of liberties. Further, research tells us time and time again that the best environment to raise a child in is a two-parent household filled with love. The American Psychological Association, amongst others, has proved that homosexual couples are more than capable of providing the love and guidance that a child
They often cite same sex marriages as an encroachment on their religious convictions of what a ‘normal’ family is supposed to look like. What they fail to see, however, is that their values and opinions about same sex marriage should never infringe upon what is an already well- established human right that applies to all people. They must be cognizant to the notion that value opposition does not warrant the refusal of one’s freedom. To withhold one from exercising the right to marry is to violate the most basic of liberties. Further, research tells us time and time again that the best environment to raise a child in is a two-parent household filled with love. The American Psychological Association, amongst others, has proved that homosexual couples are more than capable of providing the love and guidance that a child