Life liberties, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the guiding moral principles of the United States, as is the idea that every man or woman he is created equal. We can buttress these claims with John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" from On Liberty as moral support by recognizing that marriage is an essentially private institution (made public only through legality) that does not interfere with the life of anyone outside outside of marriage in other words, the government has no right to legislate morality of a private and harmless nature. From this perspective, to maintain the morality on which our country is founded and, consequently, the justice of its marriage laws, we must legalize marriage between same-sex couples and polygamous unions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In Smith and Stevens v. Greenville, the fundamental injustice is the fundamental denial of human rights on the basis of sexual orientation. As Barney Frank points out, homosexuals are taxpaying citizens entitled to standard civic benefits. We cannot overlook the economic injustice perpetrated by this prejudice. Heterosexual married couples receive tax breaks; homosexual couples do not. Homosexual couples literally end up paying for their sexual orientation (and, in a sense, compensating for heterosexuals' discounts), while not receiving any recognition or benefits. This is similar to the previously hypocritical political project, in which American ephebes could die, but not vote, for their government. Not only does same-sex marriage directly harm no one else, but the permanent institution of marriage violates Mill by cheating same-sex couples. Furthermore, any question of whether homosexuals lead morally suspect lifestyles is made increasingly controversial by scientific studies showing evidence of homosexuality. as a biological trait, not a social or psychological one, which is also found in octopuses. If these studies are true (and common sense supports them; given rampant and nearly omnipresent homophobia, who would willingly choose to subject themselves to universal scorn as a homosexual?), then the only objection to treating homosexuals with general equality is bigotry , and bigotry is an unacceptable way of judging. But even more enlightened critics argue that same-sex marriage compromises the sanctity of the institution, perhaps leading to a snowball effect of disintegrating integrity. Similar sentiments were no doubt raised when interracial marriage was legalized in 1968. As Sullivan argues, "Marriage has changed many, many times over the centuries. Each change should be judged on its own terms, not as part of an ongoing process of alleged disintegration". (Sullivan 280). It has changed because of recognized biases that require change. Critics argue that interracial marriage does not fundamentally alter the basis of marriage as same-sex mating does, and that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. By this logic, does a marriage of convenience or loveless arrangement uphold the principles of marriage by virtue of the fact that its participants are of the opposite sex? This is much more damaging to the institution. Marriage is first and foremost about the official proclamation of love and commitment, qualities that homosexuals are fully capable of satisfying. The only difference between same-sex and same-sex couples, then, is that heterosexuals are capable of reproducing, another?.