The liberties of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the guiding moral principles of the United States, as are the idea that every man or woman is created equal. We can support these claims with John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" in On Liberty as a moral foundation by recognizing that marriage is an essentially private institution (made public only through legality) that does not interfere with anyone's life outside of marriage, in other words. , the government has no right to legislate morality of a private and harmless nature. With this in mind, to maintain the morality on which our country is based and, therefore, the justice of its marriage laws, we must legalize same-sex marriage and polygamous unions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In Smith and Stevens v. Greenville, the essential injustice is the fundamental denial of human rights on the basis of sexual orientation. As Barney Frank points out, homosexuals are taxpaying citizens who are entitled to standard civic benefits. We cannot ignore the economic injustice perpetrated this way. Heterosexual married couples receive tax breaks; This is not the case for homosexual couples. Homosexual couples literally end up paying for their sexual orientation (and, in a sense, compensating heterosexual discounts), without receiving any recognition or benefits. This is akin to the once hypocritical policy project, in which ephebic Americans could die, but not vote, for their government. Not only does same-sex marriage not directly harm anyone else, but the permanent institution of marriage violates Mill by harming same-sex couples. as a biological, not societal or psychological, trait found even in octopuses. If these studies are true (and common sense supports them; given rampant and almost omnipresent homophobia, who would willingly choose to submit to universal scorn as a homosexual?), then the only objection to the treatment of homosexuals with a general equality is sectarianism, and sectarianism. is an unacceptable mode of judgment. But even more enlightened critics argue that same-sex marriage compromises the sanctity of the institution, perhaps leading to a snowball effect of disintegration of integrity. Similar feelings were undoubtedly raised when interracial marriage was legalized in 1968. As Sullivan argues, “marriage has changed many, many times over the centuries. Each change must be judged on its own terms, not as part of a continuing process of so-called disintegration.” (Sullivan 280). This changed due to recognized biases that necessitated change. Critics argue that interracial marriage does not fundamentally alter the foundations of marriage the way same-sex marriage does, and that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. According to this logic, does a marriage of convenience or arrangement without love respect the principles of marriage because its participants are of the opposite sex? It is much more damaging for the institution. Marriage is above all the official proclamation of love and commitment, qualities that homosexuals are fully capable of combining. The only difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples is therefore that heterosexuals are capable of reproducing, another supposed “meaning” of marriage. Does a heterosexual marriage voluntarily without children put ?.