This is my ethics final from this last semester exploring the issue of gay and lesbian marriage. Feel free to check it out if you want.

1. Ethics Final
Spring 2009
By Rebecca Lampman
Part One: Choose a moral problem.
The issue that I have chosen to explore is whether or not gays and lesbians should be
allowed to marry. I have an opinion on this issue but I would like to explore the issue further
and try to understand both sides. I also want to see if there are flaws in my logic. I think the
subject of gays and lesbians being able to marry is a very interesting one for several reasons. I
find it interesting that a political party that touts less government in peoples’ lives is ironically
very interested in interfering in such personal matters as love, marriage, and commitment. In a
sense, it seems they desire to legislate love. I also think this issue dangerously crosses the line
of separation of church and state because many of the people that are opposed to gay marriage
gain this viewpoint from their religious teachings.
Part Two: Use the concepts and theories you have been studying this semester.
An ethical relativist would view gay and lesbian marriage in the following manner. An
ethical relativist believes that there is no universal moral truth. What may be right for one
culture isn’t necessarily right for another and who are we to judge? Ethical relativism states the
importance of not interfering in others choices. So I conclude that most people who prescribe
to this notion would probably say that if 2 people are in love, gay or straight, it is none of our
business whether or not they do it. The most mentioned ethical relativist in our textbook is
Ruth Benedict. She believed that cultures around the globe shouldn’t be judged by our
Western viewpoint. She would feel that mainstream American morals are just one way that
people have chosen to live that are not better or worse than another group; therefore we have
no business telling gay or lesbian people that they may not marry.
One flaw to ethical relativism is that if we follow this theory to its end we cannot really
criticize the actions of other cultures, and what if those cultures are condoning abuse of
women? We wouldn’t say, well that is who they are, so who are we to judge? So in applying
this to the issue of gay and lesbian marriage is there something harmful that gay and lesbian
people do that we should not condone by allowing them to marry?

2. A utilitarian believes that when making a choice, pick the one that will maximize the
happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarian’s believe in consequences- if the
consequences are good then what you have done is right and if the consequences are bad then
what you have done is wrong. Jeremy Bentham, from Britain was the crafter of this theory- that
what is good is pleasurable and what is bad is painful. He thought that people should have the
freedom to decide where their pleasure lies and seek it. What is good or bad for each person is
for each person to decide. Bentham created the hedonistic calculus, an exercise to perform
when making a choice. The hedonistic calculus asks you to consider these questions: 1: How
intense will the pain or pleasure be. (Will I really gain a lot of pleasure from being married to
my partner?) 2. How long will this pleasure last? (Do I hope to be married to my partner for
life?) 3. How certain can we be that pleasure will follow from our action? (Will getting married
certainly enrich our relationship?) 4. How far away is this pleasure in time and space? (Will
getting married to my partner create instant happiness between the two of us? 5. How big are
the chances that this action will be followed by a similar pleasure or similar pain? (Will getting
married to my gay partner bring more and more joys or more and more sorrows? 6. What are
the chances that this action will be followed by the opposite sensation? (Will marriage to my
gay partner start out pleasurable only to be followed by pain? 7. How many people will be
affected by our decision? (Does a gay couple getting married adversely affect straight couples
that are also married?) Bentham’s egalitarian viewpoints lead me to believe that he would
conclude that gay people should be allowed to marry if it makes them happy.
The problem with utilitarianism is that you can use rationale as much as you want, but
there will still be times when the human brain won’t respond to these rational arguments. In
deciding whether or not to allow gay and lesbian marriage, people my see all of the rationale
and still find that they won’t support it.
Existentialism is a philosophy that stresses the uniqueness of the individual experience
in a hostile or indifferent universe. Existentialists believe that human existence is unexplainable
and they stress freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one’s acts. Jean-
Paul Sartre was one of the most influential thinkers in the existential movement. Sartre
believed if you lack the courage to make choices with consequences you are living in bad faith.
Sartre believed that there is no God; therefore we have no absolute moral rules either. We as
individuals become the source of our values and we create our values through the exercise of
choice. I would tend to believe that Sartre would say that interfering with any person’s choice
to marry would be forcing a group of people to live inauthentically by not allowing them to
suffer the consequences and joys of the choice of marriage.
I think many people would find flaw with existentialism because there is no recognition
of God-someone to guide us morally through this life. –A steady hand through the ages. I think

3. many people believe that humans are too imperfect to be able to decide what is right and
wrong, and that we must depend on the Bible for these answers. So in regards to gay and
lesbian marriage people would find flaw with existentialism because not because it doesn’t
make good sense, but because there is a lack of recognition in the theory of God- and there are
places in the bible that condemn gay and lesbian marriage.
Kant said that we should look at our laws and actions and ask whether we can imagine
these things as a law for everyone. His viewpoint was along the same lines as the Golden rule.
We must imagine others doing to us what we intend to do to them. –This is Kant’s rational
principle. In the case of gay marriage Kant would ask us if we would tolerate heterosexual
marriage being outlawed. If we can, then we can go ahead and outlaw homosexual marriage.
If the thought of having marriage outlawed for heterosexuals doesn’t seem right, then what
would make it right for homosexuals? Kant is in a sense also a hard Universalist because he
stands by this: we are all human and should be treated fairly by one another. I have come to
the conclusion that Kant would also say that we should not outlaw gay marriage.
Now I would like to talk about rights. I was really taken by John Rawls’ thought
experiment. John Rawls was an American philosopher (1921-2002). He believed in positive
rights which are the right to be taken care of by society in some way if you are unable to. To
imagine being as fair as possible to everyone, he says to imagine that you are creating the rules
for a new culture and that everyone is in it. Then, you are supposed to imagine that you have
no idea what position you will hold in the culture. You may be gay, poor, white, rich, black,
deformed, etc. By putting yourself in this “original position” you will then proceed to make the
rules as fair as possible for all of the members of society. When I look at this exercise I cannot
help but to believe that John Rawls would believe that it should be legal for gay couples to
marry.
Now on the other end of the political spectrum, we have the proponents of negative
rights. Negative rights are the rights of non-interference. Ayn Rand was a huge proponent of
negative rights and John Locke was the man that influenced Thomas Jefferson and came up
with our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, which Jefferson placed in our
founding documents. Negative rights are by definition rights of non-interference by
government. No one’s life should be interfered with for no good reason, nor their property or
liberty. Well, I am thoroughly confused because the neo-conservative movement that touts a
very strong believe in these negative rights seems to be perfectly okay with interfering with the
love lives of gay people by preventing them from the simple act of declaring their love,
commitment, and property to one another in the form of marriage.

4. Part Three: The Facts! I think that facts are relevant in discussing whether or not to legalize
gay marriage. Facts are important because before we as a society decide to legalize gay
marriage we want to know if granting this right will have a negative or positive impact on our
society.
Just today (May 6th), Maine passed legislation becoming the 5th state to allow same sex
marriage. The following dialogue was reported by Glenn Adams, associated press writer
between two of the Maine legislators.
“Republican Sen. Debra Plowman of Hampden argued that the bill was being passed quot;at
the expense of the people of faith.quot;
quot;You are making a decision that is not well-founded,quot; warned Plowman.
But Senate Majority Leader Philip Bartlett II said the bill does not compel religious institutions to
recognize gay marriage.
quot;We respect religious liberties. ... This is long overdue,quot; said Bartlett, D-Gorham.”
The first amendment in our Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”- I interpret this to mean that
our Government is not to condone or support any one religion nor are we to stop people from
exercising their religion. I tend to think that the decision made in Maine today follows the
guidance set forth by our country’s founders in the Constitution, but I look forward to using this
exercise to better understand where other people
may be coming from.
The survey results on the right are
from the website pewforum.org, the Pew
Forum on Religious and Public life. What
strikes me about this survey is that for
those opposing gay marriage a full 45% are
opposed to it because of their religious
beliefs. But as our 1st amendment states,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an

5. establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
According to the Parent Families and Friends of Gay and Lesbian website these are the rights
that are denied gay and lesbian people because they are not allowed to marry. I was amazed at
how significant a list it was. These are all things that I take for granted being in a heterosexual
marriage.
Because lesbians and gay men cannot marry, they have no right to:
Accidental death benefit for the surviving Payment of wages to a relative of
spouse of a government employee; deceased employee;
Appointment as guardian of a minor; Payment of worker's compensation
Award of child custody in divorce benefits after death;
proceedings; Permission to make arrangements for
Beneficial owner status of corporate burial or cremation;
securities; Proof of business partnership;
Bill of Rights benefits for victims and Public assistance from the Department of
witnesses; Human Services;
Burial of service member's dependents; Qualification at a facility for the elderly;
Certificates of occupation; Real property exemption from attachment
Consent to post-mortem examination; or execution;
Continuation of rights under existing Right of survivorship to custodial trust;
homestead leases; Right to be notified of parole or escape of
Control, division, acquisition, and disposition inmate;
of community property Right to change names;
Criminal injuries compensation; Right to enter into pre-marital agreement;
Death benefit for surviving spouse for Right to file action for nonsupport;
government employee Right to inherit property;
Disclosure of vital statistics records; Right to purchase leases and cash
Division of property after dissolution of freehold agreements concerning the
marriage; management and disposition of public
Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance land;
program of the Housing, Finance and Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful
Development Corporation; act;
Exemption from claims of Department of Right to support after divorce;
Human Services for social services Right to support from spouse;
payments, financial assistance, or burial Rights and proceedings for involuntary
payments; hospitalization and treatment;
Exemption from conveyance tax; Rights by way of dour or courtesy;
Exemption from regulation of condominium Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and
sales to owner-occupants; inheritance under the uniform probate
Funeral leave for government employees; code;
Homes of totally disable veterans exempt Sole interest in property;
from property taxes; Spousal privilege and confidential
Income tax deductions, credits, rates marriage communications;

6. exemption, and estimates; Spousal immigration benefits;
Inheritance of land patents; Status of children;
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and Support payments in divorce action;
benefits organization of mutual benefits Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
society; Vacation allowance on termination of
Legal status with partner’s children; public employment by death;
Making, revoking, and objecting to Veterans' preference to spouse in public
anatomical gifts; employment;
Making partner medical decisions; In vitro fertilization coverage;
Nonresident tuition deferential waiver; Waiver of fees for certified copies and
Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings; searches of vital statistics.
Notice of probate proceedings;
Part Four: Illustrate with a particular case. One moral analogy that I can come up with
is this. Outlawing gay marriage seems similar to laws that outlawed interracial marriage. 50
years ago, I suspect that you could find many more people than today who would outwardly
oppose 2 people of different races getting married. Yet, over time our society has come to
accept interracial marriage- Is this because we are creating our morals by our actions like the
existentialists seems to believe? I don’t know.
I am bothered and disappointed that I was unable to find an ethical philosopher that would
bring me to a different conclusion. I am worried that maybe my original opinion has gotten in
the way, so I am going to go back and better understand the flaws of each of these philosophies
to try to gain some more insight.
Part Five: The Final Analysis. I really enjoyed this exercise. I think that it is a very healthy
and in depth way of exploring some controversial issues. I look forward to seeing my fellow
students work and the insight they gained from this exercise. It was fun to re-read about Kant
and apply his belief of fairness to the issue of gay and lesbian marriage. I also enjoyed thinking
about our very important negative rights- those rights of non-interference and realizing that the
gay and lesbian community doesn’t enjoy those same negative rights that the heterosexual
community does. I have gained a lot from this exercise and this class. I have always believed
that ethics in our lives are very important as is religion of some form for most people. In this
class I have realized the stark difference between the two (ethics and religion), while
recognizing that they can also walk hand in hand for some. I have also learned that there are
many different ways of approaching an ethical dilemma and that no one thought process or
philosophy is without its’ flaws.