Proponents of gay marriage are correct when they argue that it should be permitted in the United States.

Permitting same-sex marriages is necessary to ensure that basic human rights are being respected and that the United States remains at the forefront in the promotion of civil and human rights. Continuous rejection of this right, whether through the initiative process or court decisoins, in essence represents an affront to American democracy, as it denies a part of our society equal recognition before the law.

The issue of same-sex marriage is among the most controversial in America today, as evidenced by the on-going court battles, campaigns to support or oppose initiatives on state ballots, widespread media coverage, and impassioned speeches from opponents and proponents. The contending sides present arguments and evidence derived from American legal and constitutional history, its religious tradition, and other moral and ethical reasoning.

As part of this debate, we must also consider that the rights of gays to marry is perhaps the newest extension of an evolving international discourse over basic human rights. As such, it makes increasing sense to argue that gay marriage should be defined as an inalieanable right, just like we consider the right to free speech - or to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", as the Declaration of Independence so elegantly states.

The reference to the international discourse on human rights is useful because it is necessary to remember that the United States is not an autarchy but, rather, a nation that is dynamically interacting with other nations in the world and, due to its power and influence, is a significant factor in influencing international views, policies and cultural trends. Likewise, the American views, policies and trends may also be influenced by what takes place elsewhere, including matters such as the recognition of gay marriage or civil unions.

Among the issues in which the US has been a leading force is the development of a pro-human rights culture, particulary in the post-World War II era, when US global influence has been at its peak. The American role in WWII and its legacy as a nation concerned with the defense and promotion of rights gave the United States an international standing that had no peers.

The international focus on human rights intensified in the aftemath of World War II, strongly influenced by the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany and the desire to establish a universal standard or bill of rights. The creation of the United Nations facilitated such a process, bringing together nations concerned with this issue. The final product, knows as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was adopted by the UN on December 10, 1948.

Several of the articles of the Universal Declaration can be said to be relevant to the argument that gay marriage should be permitted, at least according to this international instrument. Among these are articles 1, 2 and 16.

Article 1 states in part that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

The first part of Article 2 also states that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

Article 16, which contains three components, also states that "Men and women of full age, without any limitatons due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations by a vote of 48 in favor (including the US and Western European Nations as well as leading nations from the developing world) and 0 against. There were also 8 abstentions, all coming from members of the then-emerging Soviet Bloc).

The Universal Declaration stimulated in the decades that followed an unprecedented discussion over rights and ways of protecting them. Numerous international covenants have been developed and ratified. More importantly, there has been a trend towards an expansion of the meaning of rights and the recognition that minority groups (racial, ethnic, cultural, gender, etc.) must be granted equal status before the law and/or offered special protection due to their vulnerability (children, elderly, disabled, etc.).

With the current debate on gay marriage intensifying in the US, one is likely to expect that international attention will heighten, drawing attention to the advances, or lack thereof, in the protection of gender-based rights in this and other countries. Some, like Canada, South Africa and Spain, are part of a small group of nations that already permit this right at the national level. A larger number offer an alternative: the recognition of a civil union or partnership. Some, like the US, recognize some form of right at state or regional levels.

American states like California, Massachussets and Iowa have become battlegrounds, where forces organize and mobilize to file lawsuits and/or develop ballot initiatives. At the federal level, Congress addressed the matter through the passage in 1996 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which does not recognize same-sex marriage and is regarded as an attempt to reinforce traditional definitions of this concept. Since its approval, it has been targeted by opponents. President Barack Obama expressed his opposition to DOMA during his presidential campaign. Now as president, according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama opposes same-sex marriage but is in favor of "giving same-sex couples the same rights as married people".

The national debate will continue. At the heart of this discussion it is necessary to consider whether the American belief in equal rights for all really does extend to everyone.

Of course, it should.