The battle over Gay marriage in the United States reached a fever pitch during the presidential election of 2004. The issue vaulted into prominence when the Democratic mayor of San Francisco flouted state law and performed marriage ceremonies for Gay couples. Conservatives claim that the issue catapulted them into power by motivating fundamentalist Christian voters to turnout in order to defeat anti-gay-marriage amendments in eleven states, including the crucial swing state Ohio. Liberals retort that fundamentalist Christian turnout in 2004 was statistically even to 2000. Regardless of the truth of that statement, what cannot be denied is the attention the issue of Gay marriage has received over the past year. While I believe that a national law allowing Gays to marry remains extremely distant on the political horizon, I believe that what is likely is that states will choose to give Gay couples the right to form civil unions. As Gay couples begin to form these unions and enjoy the legal status that they will provide them, the populace at large will become increasingly accustomed to the idea. I believe that Civil Unions will eventually lead to full-fledged Gay marriage, but that this process will take some time.
Marriage became a preponderant issue in the presidential election this year because it is at heart an extremely personal and emotional issue for many Americans. For homosexuals, the institution of marriage is viewed as a societal vindication of a couple's status that is denied to gays. The issue, gay marriage activists argue, is one of equality. Homosexuals are denied the legal rights and privileges bestowed on married couples, including the right to make health related decisions in hospitals and to inherit an estate when a partner dies. Indeed, "In the modern administrative state, civil marriage condenses within a single document a vast array of legal, financial, and medical rights and benefits" (Haslett). Pr...