Is Gay Marriage Really a 'Right'?

Since the November election, gay rights activists have been foaming at the mouth over lost opportunity for gay marriage legislation. But all these efforts must beg the question, "Just why should gay rights include marriages that mimic those of heterosexual marriages?"

An article in today's New York Times discusses a new wave of individuals coming to the forefront for gay rights in wake of the recent ban on gay marriage in California. It seems the defeat at the polls on November 4, combined with a wave of new votership among typically disenfranchised voters, has created a stir that is not likely to disappear soon.

While there is no question that individuals, regardless of sexual preferences and orientations, should not be discriminated against, my question is, why should the treatment of gay relationships be the same as those between heterosexual individuals? Isn't that a bit like making an apple look like an orange?

In fact there is every reason to believe that Americans are all for gay rights and relationship perogatives. A recent USA election polls survey indicates that 55% of Americans are happy to provide gay relationships the same rights afforded heterosexual marriages, they just don't seem to want to have it called a "marriage".

And why should that be so terrible? For example, if laws were designed to protect gay spousal rights, and to afford them the same family medical benefits, as well all other rights afforded heterosexual marriage partners, wouldn't that be enough? Why exactly must it be considered a "marriage" per se? Wouldn't "hand fasting" or "communal union" or some other equally representative term do just as well?

Hopefully my inquiries don't appear insensitive, but at some point it appears to me that the gay community has to ask themselves why it is so important that laws be deemed a "marriage contract". If in fact the purpose is more an attempt to try to force "acceptance" among the masses for their sexual orientation, it appears their efforts will only suffer as a result.

While many may believe that "gay marriage" is a right, it is just as equally appropriate to say that marriage itself is not a right at all. Instead it is a socially designed "union" of individuals, sanctioned by our legislative bodies, that essentially are designed to keep track of who is having children with whom. In many states, one needn't even share marital vows to be considered "married"; after seven years of mutual habituation with one another, a couple can be considered "lawfully married" even if they never signed on the dotted line.

Perhaps it would be advantageous to consider educational opportunities in which it is okay to say "we are gay, and we are proud, and we just want access to the legal rights afforded every union between partners, no matter what it ends up being called."