Gay marriage is a hot-button issue for the voters and politicians of the United States. As we all know, the Republican Party is against the legalization of gay marriage, while the Democratic Party is for the legalization of gay marriage. The truth is that the base upon which the Republican Party stands on – freedom and liberty from government – supports the addition of homosexual marriage to the law.

Constantly is freedom from government regulation and liberty to do what one pleases is the cornerstone of Republican politics. They support less government influence in our lives, and they also support the freedom to choose what we’d like to do. Why is it, then, that they support marriage being limited to simple a man and a woman? A major argument is that the institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman, and that legalization of homosexual marriage will simply weaken this institution. They also say that marriage should not be extended to homosexuals due to their inability to procreate, and that this is a religious rite between a man and a woman. America is a Judeo-Christian nation. Civil unions are good for homosexuals. These are statements the Republicans have been using for years, but the fact of the matter is that by denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the Constitutional element of liberty and equality has been violated.

The 1974 Supreme Court ruling on Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur states that, “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause”. The 1967 Supreme Court ruling on Loving v. Virginia proclaims that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man”. For some history, Loving v. Virginia was a case based on the legality of interracial marriage, and was filed by two individuals who were placed in prison for unlawfully marrying, thus placing them in violation of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924. There were folks opposed to interracial marriage, and there were folks for it. With this Supreme Court ruling, states could no longer bar citizens from joining together in marriage for something they were born as. What is the difference here?

Homosexuals are born with their sexual orientation. Bruce Bagemihl, PhD, a biologist, stated that, “On every continent, animals of the same sex seek each other out and have probably been doing so for millions of years.” Do Republicans really want to continue arguing that millions of people are simply choosing to be different? How come animals can be born homosexual, but humans can’t be? Personally, I find it hard to believe that millions upon millions of humans are all lying that they were born that way. Do the Republicans further want to say that male children who act female, and vice versa, are simply faking it?

Marriage is not traditionally between a man and a woman. There are many examples, both modern and ancient, of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution. Marriage is also defined as society’s attitudes evolve, and a May 2013 Gallup poll shows that 53% of Americans support the legalization of homosexual marriage. Society changes, and so does the definition of marriage. In 19th century America, coverture, in which a female’s economic identity and legal rights were subsumed by her husband at marriage, was commonplace. Only 47 years have passed since it was illegal in America for those of opposite races to marry. If women can have rights, and interracial lovers can have rights, why can’t homosexuals?

If homosexuals are unable to procreate, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry, right? Wrong. If the ability to procreate is the justifying matter in marriage, then we need to ban all infertile couples from marrying. We need to start government-sponsored fertility tests in order to allow marriage. Is this really the argument that some people use for keeping illegal gay marriage?

Are civil unions good for homosexuals? Sure, if heterosexuals can get them, too, and homosexuals have the ability to get married to each other. Just as I do not support discrimination against gays, I don’t support discrimination against heterosexuals from getting civil unions. Anyone should be allowed to get similar protections as marriage without actually marrying. Why is it, though, that we are subjecting homosexuals to a lower level than heterosexuals? The Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote it best to their state Senate in 2004 by stating that only allowing homosexuals to civil unions “is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status." What happened to the sentence in the Declaration of Independence that states, “All men are created equal”?

America is truly not a Judeo-Christian nation. If it was, then why are there a total of zero references to Christianity, God, or Jesus Christ in the Constitution? In fact, America was created to break away from a nation with a government-sponsored religion. Why did Reverend John Mason of New York attack, in 1793, the Constitution for having a lack of references to God? Why, in 1845, did the Reverend D.X. Junkin write, “[The Constitution] is negatively atheistical, for no God is appealed to at all. In framing many of our public formularies, greater care seems to have been taken to adapt them to the prejudices of the INFIDEL FEW, than to the consciences of the Christian millions.” Why did nineteenth-century ministers attempt, through the National Reform Association, to add references to Jesus Christ and Christianity to the Constitution?

If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. I am morally opposed to gay marriage, I really am, but I know that my morals do not dictate someone else’s life. My religion does not permit homosexual marriage, but I can understand that my religion doesn’t control everyone. It should never control anyone. I will continue to fight for equality, because this nation was founded on that. It should be clarified, though, that I do not support any federal marriage regulation. This is not the job of the federal government to tell states which people can and cannot marry, but it should be up to states to determine who they would like to allow marriage to.

Guess what? I’m a Republican, too.

Love is patient. Love is kind. Love prevails.