Moreno 1

Cynthia Moreno

Mrs. McCann

English 1301.125

28 October 2021

Why Same-Sex Marriage Should be a Religious Right

On June 26 of 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that same-sex marriage

should be legal across all fifty states. This day marked a historical advancement in the rights of

the LGBTQ+ community in the United States. However, the debate over the community and its

right to marriage remains a controversial issue, mainly due to religion and its stance on the

LGBTQ+ community. “Gay Marriage as a Religious Right: Reframing the Legal Debate over

Gay Marriage in the United States” by Debra L. DeLaet and Rachel Paine Caufield discusses the

advantages and disadvantages of considering same-sex marriages as a religious right. Their

article analyses the debate over same-sex marriage and how it can be framed as a religious right

in order to allow the practice of marriage to occur. Delaet and Caufield utilize logos to

effectively argue “religious rights” should be used as opposed to the argument of “equal rights”

when discussing the topic of whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized.

Although this article is based during 2008, the discourse relating to same-sex marriage is

still relevant, mainly amongst politicians and the LGBTQ+ community. Arguments made about

same-sex marriage and its legalization, whether it is before or after its legalization, usually

involve the idea of equality and the rights of the American citizens. Same-sex marriage framed

as a religious right gives readers of the journal a different perspective on the legal debate as well

as offer a new strategy that may aid in the debate apart from the equal rights argument. Legal
 Moreno 2

cases expressed later in the journal allow the authors to formulate arguments based on the

advantages and disadvantages of using other reasons to allow the LGBTQ+ community to marry.

One of the article’s main arguments is that churches all across the country have allowed

for same-sex marriages to be conducted in the church. If the law were to prohibit the practice of

letting same-sex couples marry, it would be against the first amendment of the Constitution that

states that the citizens of America have the right to religious freedom. In order to argue for the

freedom of religious freedom, Delaet and Caufield list the various religions that have already

allowed for the practice of marriage to take place in their places of worship as of 2008. For

instance, the authors state that the “Metropolitan Community Church has blessed same-sex

unions for several decades and has been at the forefront of the movement to legalize same-sex

marriages” (DeLaet and Caufield 299). This proves that there are actual communities of people

who have accepted gay people into their religions and have allowed them to experience the same

practices they do. Under this argument, taking away their right to marry their significant other

would be like violating their religious rights.

Following the abstract are two paragraphs where the authors state their credibility. These

paragraphs were placed after the abstract and before the introduction to inform the readers that

the authors are credible people who know what they are arguing. As stated in the text, “Debra L.

DeLaet is a professor of Politics and International Relations at Drake University” and “Rachel

Paine Caufield is an associate professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations

at Drake University” (DeLaet and Caufield 298). This rhetorical strategy called ethos is used in

the first few paragraphs to demonstrate that both authors are credible and makes it so that the

readers believe what the authors are saying because of their qualifications. The use of this

rhetorical device is highly effective when it comes to convincing the readers that the authors will
 Moreno 3

or are making good claims on their subject, and in this case, the use of credibility is very

effective.

There is another instance in the article where ethos is used, except it is utilized to show

the credibility of the opposing argument. Caufield and DeLaet use President George W. Bush’s

speech in 2004 as an example of how the opposing side has made efforts to prevent the

legalization of same-sex marriage. By doing so, the authors give the opposing argument a person

of power who is on their side, but then they counter the person’s points and use polls, a strategy

that can be characterized as logos, to back up their counterargument. In addition, the authors

communicate that practices having to do with couples of the same-sex have already been done

for many years and that many of these practices are part of different cultures. Bush is used as an

example of how traditional and religious views and values affect politics.

Furthermore, DeLaet and Caufield mention that the opposition to the legalization of gay

marriage in the United States is part of American tradition. It is almost like people oppose same-

sex marriage due to the bandwagon appeal: everyone is doing it. This way of thinking is part of

the way the opposing argument perceives gay marriage. They begin these ideas by expressing

that the “majority of Americans have embraced the view of heterosexual, monogamous marriage

as a universal institution” (DeLaet and Caufield 306). It is difficult to persuade an audience to

believe the opposite of what they had grown up to believe, which is why heterosexual marriages

are acceptable and homosexual marriages are not.

Later in the article, the authors bring up legal cases that support their argument. Each of

the cases provided supports the claim that the “Supreme Court found that sexual relations and

marriage are fundamental rights that cannot be denied to any citizen based upon race

(McLaughlin and Loving) or incarceration (Turner) under the Equal Protection Clause” (DeLaet
 Moreno 4

and Caufield 308). By being shown the court cases in the article, readers are more than likely to

believe the authors. Whether the information is true or not, readers are more inclined to believe

anything that the authors argue for or against when the authors provide evidence to back up their

claims. Utilizing logos in an article makes it easier for the reader to be persuaded.

More than half of the authors’ argument is supported by logos. Although most of the

evidence provided are legal cases that have affected the course of the legalization of gay

marriage in different states, they also utilize ethos to provide a counterargument for their claim.

Under the heading “Marriage as a Union between a Man and a Woman: a Sectarian Definition”,

the authors describe the many people who have fought against the legalization of gay marriage.

In addition, the authors provide common arguments made by religious people, and then they

counter those arguments with their own evidence and research. For instance, the authors state

that the “claim by religious conservatives that they are defending a traditional definition of

marriage belies historical reality” (DeLaet and Caufield 307). Then they counter that argument

by declaring that the “historically dominant Christian interpretation of marriage represents

particular and not universal values, and any claims derived from this religious tradition should be

acknowledged as such and not represented as universal and timeless truths” (DeLaet and

Caufield 307).

The authors give insight to both sides of the argument that same-sex could be justified by

using the idea of making it a religious right. This not only further proves their side of the

argument but also gives readers the perspective that the opposing argument has and why they

may respond in a certain way, as well as what makes them think the way they do. For instance,

the authors touch the subject of polygamy relationships that could potentially be justified using

the same argument used to justify same-sex marriage. Those who use the polygamy relationships
 Moreno 5

against same-sex marriage usually associate polygamy relationships with, as stated in the article,

“sexual abuse of minors, incest, domestic violence, and the creation of a class of low-status,

unmarried young men who are marginalized within their religious community, rise to the level of

‘‘compelling state interest’’” (DeLaet and Caufield 316). They later counter this argument by

stating that the “government might find it easier to enforce existing laws against statutory rape,

incest, and domestic violence” (DeLaet and Caufield 317). Although the authors admit that there

are indeed limitations such as the idea of polygamy relationships being legalized, they firmly

believe that there are still possibilities in which the religious rights argument may still be used

effectively.

In conclusion, the authors not only provide evidence to support their original argument of

posing same-sex marriage as a religious right but also gives the limitations of considering the use

of that argument. Still, Caufield and DeLaet attempt to convince the reader, which in this case

could be people of power that are involved in politics and any other person who does not support

the legalization of same-sex marriage whether they are religious, conservative or both, that the

religious rights argument may indeed be effective in allowing same sex marriages in the United

States. With the use of rhetorical strategies such as logos and ethos, Debra L. DeLaet and Rachel

Paine Caufield effectively prove their argument.

 Moreno 6

Work Cited

DeLaet, Debra L., and Rachel Paine Caufield. “Gay Marriage as a Religious Right: Reframing

the Legal Debate over Gay Marriage in the United States.” Polity, vol. 40, no. 3, 18 Feb.

2008, pp. 297–320. ProQuest, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300103. Accessed 3

Nov. 2021.