Deciphering the Discrimination Behind the Gay Marriage Ban

 Discrimination is the treatment of a group of people differently, based on prejudices about that group of people. Prejudices are judgments made about another person or group of people based on often fictional stereotypes and differences between the person making the judgment and the person being judged. These prejudices do not always involve a conscious thought process, but sometimes are a born out of a lack of desire to fight those stereotypes and prejudices. For example, if someone talks about their African friend, one would assume that the friend has a dark complexion. While the majority of Africans may indeed be black, this pre-judgment does not consider the fact that some Africans are white. Perhaps the friend was among the 10% of South African’s white citizens who consider themselves and their ancestors African or European African. The most common form of discrimination is based on the differences between people, and self-righteous feelings of superiority by the discriminating people.

To equate discrimination of the homosexual population to Catherine MacKinnon’s sex discrimination theory, a discriminatory act would be based on sexual orientation, and sexual orientation must not be a legitimate factor to consider (Saul, 7). That is, if sexual orientation were a valid reason to not allow equal rights, then it is not discriminatory. To illustrate a situation that may appear to be discrimination, but is not discrimination because there is a legitimate reason for the action, would be a criteria that a camp counselor for a Girl Scout camp must be a woman. This criteria is not intended to be discriminatory toward men, but to be in the best interest of the girls. Based on this traditional definition of discrimination, many arguments can be made that banning gay marriage is not discrimination.

One argument for banning homosexual marriage is that homosexuals “are promiscuous, unable to form lasting relationships, and the relationships that do form are shallow and uncommitted” (Scott, 1). This does not fit the definition of discrimination against marriage, because if that statement is true, it would be a valid reason to prohibit gay marriage. And according to Scott, some homosexual relationships are indeed shallow and uncommitted, but so are some heterosexual relationships. Since the promiscuity argument can be presented against both homosexuals and heterosexuals, it does not make a valid argument against banning only homosexual marriage.

Another misunderstanding about homosexuals is that they can control their sexual orientation, and if they want to get married and have a family, they could simply choose a member of the opposite sex. If this thought process were true, there would be no need for gay marriage or gay marriage bans, because homosexuals could simply choose to be in a heterosexual relationship, and thus have the ability to marry. Therefore, it does not fit the traditional definition of discrimination.