Jennifer Spangler is a featured editorialist from Granite Hills' AP English Language class. She argues that same-sex marriage should be legalized because "It is the Constitution and not the Bible that controls what is law in America."

When most people find love, they can celebrate their joy with their friends and family, and proclaim their eternal love by participating in the institution of marriage. Unfortunately, some lovers cannot uncover this joy, cannot make this proclamation. Instead, they must hide their love from the world, or be persecuted for it. They are often afraid to admit who they are because of all that they must face when they do. These couples are often publicly denounced as being immoral and disgusting, and this opinion is so ingrained in some parts of society that it is not uncommon to hear derogatory terms like "fag" used by school children, or to hear of children playing games with titles such as "Smear the Queer."

The government is even influenced by this sentiment, trying to pass laws to codify this discrimination into legal terms, but we must not allow this to happen. The ban on same-sex marriage is an expression of discrimination that has no place in our legal system.
 
The far right and left wing members of America have been arguing the opposing sides of the same-sex marriage debate for quite a while. Currently, some states allow "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships," but almost any source will tell you that these pseudo-marriages do not provide all the same rights and benefits that civil marriages give to heterosexual couples. Marriage Equality USA claims that heterosexual couples can enjoy civil marriage as “a government institution that grants hundreds of state rights and over 1,000 federal rights."
 
Same-sex couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships do not have the same benefits and rights that heterosexual couples have under civil marriages. Political commentator Scott Bidstrup points out that, "In most states, gay people cannot make medical decisions for their partners in an emergency. Instead, hospitals are often forced to contact the estranged and often hostile family, which often totally ignores the patient’s wishes. Upon death, even well drawn out wills may not stand up to a hostile family that wishes to challenge it. If their partner is arrested, a gay person’s partner may be compelled to testify against them the way a straight person’s spouse cannot be."
 
This problem can be easily solved by legalizing same-sex marriage. Most of the arguments against legalizing same-sex marriages are expressions of prejudice rather than actual logical arguments. Some claim that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman—but this is a simple statement of opinion with no logical argument behind it. This sentiment may tie into the argument that marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution, but that is only looking at one aspect of marriage; people must also look at the ways marriage has evolved over the years.

In colonial times, marriage was traditionally a class institution. It was nearly unthinkable to marry outside of one’s station, but that is no longer the case. When the slaves gained their freedom, interracial marriage was a scandalous idea—this too has changed. When seen in this light, marriage is not a stagnant tradition, but an institution that grows and adapts with the culture as time goes on.

Some express concern that same-sex households are not the optimum environment in which to raise children, but there is no evidence stating that children raised in same-sex homes are more likely to become gay or lesbian or any more likely to suffer from any significant illnesses than children raised in any other environment. This argument is ridiculous due to the fact that society allows murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters, to freely marry and procreate with much less protest by these same critics.

Many say that gay relationships are immoral, but this is where the First Amendment comes in. It is the Constitution and not the Bible that controls what is law in America. The government cannot endorse any particular religion and no particular religion can dictate what goes on in the government. The religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage do not speak for all religious groups, and even if they did they would still not be speaking on behalf of all Americans.  To codify their prejudice into law would be an infringement on all others’ First Amendment rights.

Many claim that marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species, but the obvious question comes to mind: What about marriages between people who are infertile or otherwise incapable of having children? Are those marriages less valid because they cannot fulfill the stated purpose of marriage? Since society routinely allows these sorts of marriages, this argument doesn’t stand either.

Some worry that same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage, but that is a contradictory statement in itself. It would threaten marriage to allow people to marry? I believe that at least part of this argument is based on the worry that homosexuals will recruit, making straight people become gay, but this is absolutely baseless considering the fact that sexuality is inborn. As U.S. Representative Barney Frank said, "Defense of Marriage? It's like the old V-8 commercial. As though if this act didn't pass, heterosexual men all over the country would say, 'I could have married a guy!'"

Some worry that same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. This is an illogical argument calculated to spread fear. If this were a legitimate issue, we would be seeing these things happening in countries that have already legalized same-sex marriage, and we are not.

Some religious opponents worry that legalized same-sex marriage would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so, but this is not the case. First, churches reserve the right to refuse to marry anyone they do not wish to marry; in fact, it is not uncommon for churches to refuse to marry any given couple for a variety of reasons. Second, a civil marriage does not require a religious service at all.
 
Since there is no compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, I see no reason why they should be denied. Most of the common arguments are religious in nature and are countered by the First Amendment, and those that are not are illogical. People oppose same-sex marriage because of prejudice, and legal recognition of their equality will help to quell that prejudice in the long run, just as the end of segregation has greatly reduced racial prejudice. We should promote laws that support equality over discrimination: same-sex marriage should be legalized in the United States.