Three years after her graduation from the University of Michigan, Chris Jacobs has a good job and a healthy committed relationship. She has been with her partner, Laura Jacobs, for five years. They live a happy life together in Ann Arbor and they are looking forward to their upcoming commitment ceremony. True love is one definition of happiness, and many University of Michigan students aspire to have what Chris Jacobs has. Chris is lucky to live in Ann Arbor because it is one of a very few places in the world where she cannot legally be discriminated against because of her sexual orientation when searching for housing or a job.

Chris and Laura, however, encounter discrimination in another form. Unlike couples who happen to be heterosexuals, Chris and Laura cannot marry.

With marriage comes a host of privileges that many take for granted. These include, but are not limited to, medical rights such as coverage under a spouse's policy or the right to make decisions about a spouse's care when they become unable, adoption rights such as the ability to adopt a spouse's child, economic incentives such as large tax breaks and eligibility for certain types of mortgages, and survivors' rights such as automatic inclusion in estates. None of these rights are guaranteed to domestic partners or anyone else who cannot be married. For Chris Jacobs, this means that when she has a child, she and her child will not have medical insurance for most of the time that she is away from work. If her partner happened to be a man he could immediately adopt her baby and the baby's expenses would be covered under his insurance. If Chris is hospitalized for any reason and becomes unable to communicate her wishes, Laura has no legal right to makes decisions for her or even visit her. Despite these obstacles, Chris plans to have children.

Strong values, like Chris's, are essential to the institutions of marriage and family. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual people share the values of love, spirituality and financial security. Rhetoric against gays that hides under the thin veil of so called morality actually hinders solutions to real problems by causing unnecessary divisiveness. Think about the real problems in society today like poverty, disappearing jobs, and domestic abuse. Denying the 3 million US families lead by same-sex unions access to financial and social resources does nothing to mend the moral fabric of our nation. There is no logical argument linking denial of equal rights to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to solutions to societal problems.

Some site religious objections to same-sex marriages. While some religious denominations are against them, others fully support them. Methodists, the United Church of Christ, Congregationalists, Reform Jews, the Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalists, and Quakers, for example, openly and lovingly celebrate unions between same-sex couples. While those whose religions disapprove of same-sex marriages are entitled to the freedom to express their opinions, they must realize that religious objections cannot be applied to the law. It is a violation of the Constitutional separation of church and state to argue the question of same-sex marriages using religious doctrine. While it is customary for churches to celebrate a marriage by performing a wedding ceremony, marriage is in fact conferred by a legal union. Same-sex couples seek equality in the eyes of the law, and no religion has the authority to shape laws.

Excluding religious objections, others claim that recognizing same-sex marriages threatens "traditional family values." Some make the claim that the ability to procreate is a fundamental pillar of marriage. It is irrational to make this argument without ever applying it to heterosexual couples. Not every heterosexual couple chooses to procreate, nor does every heterosexual couple even have the ability to bear children. Yet, not one heterosexual couple has ever been denied the right to marry because they could not procreate. Why shouldn't it be the same for same-sex couples?

Indeed, those who argue in favor of preserving "traditional marriage roles" fail to realize that marriage is a constantly changing construct formed by culture and the times. No one ideal "traditional" model has ever existed. Rather, through the efforts of some, marriage has progressed into a more egalitarian and inclusive institution. Reflecting the current reality of the diversity of family structures is the goal of same-sex marriages. After all, without ever challenging the status quo, where would we be? Laws would still render married women their husband's property and interracial marriages would have remained banned by miscegenation laws. In fact, members of the radical right use the same excuses to prevent same-sex marriages that they used only a few decades ago to stop interracial marriages. They claim that they are saving children from the awful stigma of growing up in a non-traditional family when they are the ones perpetuating the stigma. By their name calling they hope to convince people that gays, lesbians and bisexuals will make unfit parents. Conservatives claim that they are saving children from psychologically unfit parents. There is no evidence to support this unfounded stereotype. In fact, a study released at the Widner University Symposium in 1994 showed that children of lesbian couples are just as psychologically healthy as those of opposite-sex couples.

Marriage in contemporary American society reflects our culture's emphasis on freedom of choice. Adults desiring companionship have the right to select their life partners. Others have the responsibility to respect that choice. Love - not gender or the ability to procreate - defines a family. Families of same-sex couples do not endanger the institution of marriage, nor anyone else. In fact, allowing same-sex couples the right to marry strengthens the institution of marriage by extending it to a group of stable families who already exist but lack recognition and rights.