Support equality

The debate surrounding same-sex marriage gained a lot of attention this week. On Tuesday and Wednesday the Supreme Court heard arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor—two different cases involving same-sex couples. Although official rulings on the cases will not be out for some time, tensions between those in support of same-sex marriage and those against it have reached a boiling point.

Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that marriage is between one man and one woman and that any other definition of marriage would undermine the sanctity of the institution as a whole. Furthermore, marriages occur with the biological goal of procreation—meaning that only one male one female unions should be recognized as marriage. Others have argued that the issue simply should not be before a federal court—it is a matter for the states.

We—like many other supporters of same-sex marriage—disagree with these arguments. First, we do not believe that the definition of marriage will be harmed by the inclusion of same-sex couples. The argument that marriage is a union based on biological needs is also quite ludicrous—if this argument were to be followed to its logical end then marriages where a partner is sterile or the couple elects to not have children should also not be counted as marriages or allowed. We also challenge the argument that this is not an issue for the federal government to decide. Because spousal rights such as insurance coverage, next-of-kin status and survivor benefits are all tied into the federal definition of marriage, it is necessary for the federal government to be involved in the issue.

The two cases before the Supreme Court have the potential to radically change how the United States acknowledges same-sex marriages. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the justices could vote to allow same-sex marriage in all 50 states, allow states to determine for themselves if same-sex marriage should be legal or not or simply rule that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to appeal a lower court’s decision and not make a decision on same-sex marriage. In United States v. Windsor, the court could rule to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would allow couples that live in states allowing for same-sex marriage to receive federal spousal benefits. They could also rule to uphold DOMA in its current form, continuing to deny numerous benefits to these couples.

If the court decided to rule in favor of same-sex marriage, it would certainly have effects in North Carolina and at Duke—especially since a majority of voters in the state were in favor of Amendment One last year. Even if the court chooses a more neutral ruling that only influences a few states, it would have an impact—students from California or states that currently allow same-sex marriage would still be affected by the results.

But a ruling allowing same-sex marriage across the country should not be seen as an end to discrimination against the LGBT community. Homelessness, mental health problems and employment discrimination continue to be problems that still need to be addressed. Even after this ends we must continue to support equality for all.