This summer New York became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage. The state joined the ranks of those to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Arguments given by politicians against gay marriage have been very contradictory in the recent political atmosphere. With the debate of big government versus small government same-sex marriage can be justified by a Republican and even Tea Party platform.

Many begin an argument against same-sex marriage by institutionalizing marriage. Its opponents often claim that allowing same-sex couples the ability to marry would undermine the institution, claiming there are many legal rights and opportunities surrounding the institution of traditional marriage. Many simply cite their religious texts saying that it is banned.

I don’t dispute that statement, but who is to say that a male citizen of the United States that loves another man may not enjoy the same legal rights and opportunities? The institutionalization of marriage argument is embraced by many conservatives and is often given by many religious groups.

Constitutionally, there have been many cases at the state level that have set a precedent for defining marriage. The first battle took place in Virginia with the Loving v. Virginia (1967). Upholding the Virginia law would violate the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated on the basis of race and the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with “the fundamental freedom” of marriage.
Historically important cases include Zablocki v Redhail (1978), Turner v Safley (1987) and Goodridge v Dept. of Public Health (2003); these cases have set a clear precedent.

Many red states have passed defense of marriage clauses that defend the definition of traditional marriage to remain between a man and a woman. Clearly, this is unconstitutional.

Many conservatives take a position that government should not take a big role in people’s lives. However, defining marriage and telling the American people who can and cannot be married is one of the most invasive measures into an individual’s life.

Marriage is not a religious institution; it is the highest level of commitment for two individuals who are in love with one another.

If you decide in your private life to marry heterosexually, you should be able to. The problem is that not everyone shares the same religious beliefs in America, which proves there must be a separation between church and state.

In conclusion, I argue that the right to love is a human right that should be secured and given to all.

I speak from personal experience that gay individuals do have the ability to love. They should have the right to show that commitment through marriage and express their level of love for one another.

Finally, as we move forward toward the future, let gay pride continue to grow. I am confident that people will soon begin to become more open minded, which is why I write this article.

I believe Mercyhurst is beginning to become more accepting even as a Catholic campus. It is sad, however, when someone has to stay closeted because of fear of societal rejection. Embrace your inner gay and move forward.