Gay Marriages in Colorado - Research Paper Example

? Gay Marriages in Colorado Introduction Gay marriages in Colorado are limited in number. This is as a result of the laws set limiting the rights of the partners. Colorado’s constitution was amended in the year 2006 to ban same-sex marriages. The only recognized marriage type in the 2006 constitution was that between a man and woman. In fact, in the constitution Section 31, Article II, it was stated that the only recognizable marriage in the state is that between one woman and one man. This implies that the constitution does not only ban same-sex marriage but also polygamous marriages. As from 2006, marriage was defined to be between one woman and one man, registered, licensed and solemnized according to the procedures, which were established. Additionally, common law marriages are treated as recognized marriages if at all they are between one woman and one man and the partners hold publicly that they are married. Only recognized marriages in the country can enjoy the rights entitled to married couples. This applies to Mesa County as there is a marriage license office. These include collecting worker’s compensation, life insurance, and pensions even if one is not stated as the beneficiary, deciding on the medical treatment each other should receive, incurring and paying debts jointly, ending marriage and distributed the properties as per the law, filing income tax returns jointly, among others (Deamtteis). It is believed that Coloradans have shifted their thinking against gay marriage. This was also shown in the 2006 ballot in which only 55.02% supported banning same-sex marriages while 44.98% were against the move. However, since then many people are supporting same-sex marriages; their thinking has changed. The arguments in favor of banning gay marriage are very weak and lack support. One of the arguments is that of public’s interest to support the commonly known marriage definition. The definition of marriage has been a union between one woman and one man and this is what needs to be preserved in order to ensure that the environment is conducive for protecting, nurturing and creating children. The second argument is that of a constitutional amendment to avoid distracting court ruling when it comes to issues of family and marriages (Head). On the contrary, those opposing the ballot cast of 2006 argued that the same constitution had a clause that guarantees the citizens of their rights. Many of these pro-homosexuality are located in Mesa County. These rights include making a decision on whom to marry and spend the rest of one’s life with. Amendment 43 is unconstitutional based on the fact that it denies same sex married couples rights to legal protection and rights as those enjoyed by heterosexuals. Basing the argument of human rights, the opponents have strong arguments compared to the supporters who base their argument of preserving the definition of marriage (Head). Considering the opponents’ arguments, it goes without saying that gay marriage should be legalized in Colorado. Gay marriage should not be seen as anything illegal or unethical but only respect for human rights. Making a decision by a man to get married to another man is not illegal; it should be treated the same way as that man deciding to get married to a woman (Head). This is what the activists in Mesa County are fighting for. Colorado is a country that is known to having so many same sex marriage couples. The number is increasing drastically forcing the legalization of same sex marriages in the country. It is notable that over 14% same sex married couples in Mesa County have children. In 2000, the number of same sex married couples in Colorado was 10,045. This number has increased to 15,915 in 2005. It is notable that female same sex couples are more than male, at 54% and 46% respectively. This means that out of the 15,915 couples in 2005, around 7320 couples were gay. This is a substantial number to legalize gay marriage in the country. Considering the fact that even after gay marriage is discouraged and people are still getting into it in increasing numbers, it should be noted that legalizing it would be the only option. This would mean that citizens in Colorado would walk in peace and merry and celebrate as other couples do, enjoying all the rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals (Moreno and Wyatt). Implications of Legalizing Gay Marriage in Colorado A voting exercise was carried on in 2006 in Colorado banning gay marriage. Even though the results showed that majority of the citizens were for the idea of illegalizing gay marriage, it is evident from the results that quite a substantial number were opposing the move. Recently, studies have been conducting collecting data on the number of people opposing and supporting gay marriages in Colorado. From these studies, it has been noted that people have changed their minds as over 75% in Mesa County support legalization of gay marriage. They see it as a form of human right through marriage that any citizen in the country should enjoy (Moreno and Wyatt). Having support of around three-quarters of the whole Colorado population implies that legalizing gay marriage should not affect many people in the country. The only people who can feel the negative impact are those social groups that have been forever preserving the definition of marriage. Since out of one of every gay couple in the country have children, legalizing it would be a great benefit for the children. This is because free couples with human and marriage rights to enjoy would raise the children comfortably (Head). Legalizing gay marriage is the best thing to do in Colorado. After considering all other countries in which gay marriage is legalized, it follows that Colorado is not an exception. The first argument in this is that of human rights as included in the constitution. In the constitution, it is stated that the citizens have rights to enjoy and these rights need to be protected. However, imposing conditions on whom one should marry and who not to marry contradicts the constitution. The citizens should enjoy the right to marry as well as the benefits associated with marriage life in the country. Illegalizing gay marriage such that gay couples cannot be recognized in the country is a mode of discrimination (Deamtteis). Another factor is that gay marriage is on the increase in the country and especially in Mesa county. Even with its ban, Coloradans are still involving themselves into it and going to the extent of adopting children. With over 16,000 gay couples in the country, around 3,200 couples have children. This means that with legalization of these marriages, these couples would feel comfortable raising their children. Subsequently, the children would be comfortable and would enjoy life as if they had a mother and a father (Moreno and Wyatt). Legalization of gay marriage can also be done on the argument that many other countries have done it and it had not led to immoral or unethical effects. For instance, gay marriage is legalized in several states of America even though the federal government does not legalize it. Nonetheless, the federal government does not interfere with such decisions made by the state governments. Other countries in which gay marriage is legalized are Sweden, South Africa, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Netherlands, Iceland, Canada, Belgium, and Argentina. This is a good start for Colorado to be like those countries (O’Connor). Defining Gay Marriage Gay marriage is the type of marriage involving two males, one taking the normal responsibilities of a woman in marriage and the other assuming the responsibilities of a man. In other countries, gay marriage can be used to refer to same-sex marriage. In this case, the definition would include marriage between two females. Therefore, gay marriage is the marriage union between either two males or two females (Deamtteis). While gay marriages are between two males or two females, civil marriages are marriages between partners of different sexes and are performed by government officials such that they follow the procedures of the law. With civil marriages, the couple is issued with a marriage certificate and is therefore recognized in the home country. As a result, couples married in civil marriage are entitled to all the benefits and rights enjoyed to all other lawfully recognized couples in the country. On the other hand, gay marriages are not recognized in many countries all over the world and therefore the couples should keep it a secret and thus are not entitled to any marriage rights and benefits (O’Connor). Previously marriages were considered holy. The couples had to be a man and a woman for procreation purposes. Marriage was seen as an institution that should not be broken. In fact, the couples are brought together by vows that should not be broken. As a result, one has to be sure with the other before making a decision to live together. This is because marriage has to be eternal and as quoted in religious practices, only death that can part the parties involved. Traditionally, marriages were placed in the hands of the Lord and anyone who could separate such a couple was cursed. In the process of sanctifying marriages, the marriage was placed in the hands on a Powerful Mighty. However, room was left in case the couple would wish to terminate their marriage. This was to be done under the process of law (Romero et al). The governments that support gay marriage argue that it is respect for human rights. They acknowledge that people should be responsible for the choices they make in life. As a result, people should not be imposed into adhering to laws that would not respect their human rights choices. The governments, which do not support gay marriage see it as illegal, unethical and immoral and argue that it is the cause of increased break ups of heterosexual marriages. On the contrary, religious practices do not have room for gay marriage. They base their arguments on Bible verses in which a marriage is meant for procreation. Since only a man and a woman can bear children, marriage should only be heterosexual (O’Connor). Since the voting done in Colorado in 2006, gay marriage was restricted and this gave rise to a number of opponents who rejected the results of the ballot. Now that it is nearing election period again and the finalizing of the groups’ stand should be done by August, several groups have come up favoring legalization of gay marriage. They argue that Colorado constitution respects human rights and as a result, should respect the choices made by the Coloradans as part of human rights. Excluding gay marriage in the definition of marriage and imposing, it in the constitution breaches the constitution. There is no point in contradicting the constitution by the same people who draft and implement it. The laws included in the constitution should not conflict as does the two clauses on banning gay marriage and at the same time respecting human rights as in Colorado constitution (Deamtteis). The Background behind Legalizing Gay Marriage Initially, gay marriage was not recognized in Colorado. In this case, recognition is different from legalization. After the ballot conducted in 2006, gay marriage was not legalized but some rights for the gay couples were recognized. This included the right to adopt children. However, they were restricted of enjoying the rights enjoyed by other couples such filing income tax returns as a couple, pension of couple among other work benefits. However, the recognition of these couples changed the face of their way of living. Gays are now able to raise children, work in the private sector, earn an income more than that earned by other couples, and raise children who are under 18 years of age (Moreno and Wyatt). Gay marriage is on a debate on whether to be legalized or not. Those opposing its legalization have a number of arguments to support their stand. To start with, they argue that gay marriage would destroy the institutionalism of marriage. In this, they argue that same sex marriage would lower the rate of heterosexual marriage. They further support their point by Bible verse, Romans 1:29-32, arguing that heterosexual marriages as the only religious marriages, between a man and a woman. Additionally, they argue that children raised in these families would be affected negatively (O’Connor). On the contrary, those in favor of legalizing gay marriage argue that a marriage should be a union between two people who find themselves compatible. As a result, gay marriage would not affect any woman and man relationship if at all they are comfortable with each other. The verse from the book of Romans is contradicted with another verse in the same book that says that no one has the right to judge others. This means that no religious person has the right to judge same-sex couples. To crown it all, there are no studies proving that the children raised by same-sex couples are negatively affected, it remains a feeling (Romero et al). Opponents with most situated in Mesa county further argue that legalizing same-sex marriages means that polygamy should be legalized. As they put it, legalizing this marriage is followed by polygamy. However, the proponents contradict this arguing that polygamy and same-sex marriages are two different types of marriages. As a result, they propose that after gay marriage is legalized in Colorado, there should be laws put in place banning polygamy. Legalizing gay marriage in the state would help the country keep in pace with what the other states in America support (O’Connor). The opponents argue that gay marriage legalization would make divorce rates in heterosexuals high and easy. They argue that people would be interested in leaving their opposite sex partners to move in with same-sex partners. On the contrary, the proponents argue the imposition of laws only accepting heterosexual type of marriage increases divorce rates in the state because many couples end up making wrong choices to fit in the society. Legalizing gay marriage implies that people would make free choices on who to spend the rest of the lives with, whether a same sex partner or an opposite sex partner (Deamtteis). As noted earlier, several states in US have legalized gay marriage. Even though the federal government has not legalized it, it does not interfere with the decisions made by different states. These states include Connecticut, Washington State’s Suquamish Indian tribes, Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington, D.C., New York, and Oregon's Coquille. In these states, licenses are issued for same-sex married couples. Additionally, Maryland and Washington has come with laws to protecting same sex marriages through issuing of licenses. However, such laws have not been enacted and would probably be voted in 2012 voter referendum. Even though the opponents of this move argue that gay marriage should not be legalized before voted in by voters, the citizens, the proponents argue that it is a civil right and being protected by the constitution, it should not be subjected to referendum voting (Moreno and Wyatt). Legalization of gay marriage in these states has rose conflicts between the opponents and the proponents. While the opponents are for argument of respecting and preserving the definition of marriage, the proponents are for the idea of respecting human rights included in the states’ constitutions. In fact, each state in this case has a constitution with a clause on human rights. This conflict has led to other states, which have yet not legalized same-sex marriage, either have constitutional bans on it or laws set against it (Romero et al). Government’s current role in same sex relationships The government role in gay marriage is protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens. Conflict arises from the same government in that it sets laws banning gay marriage thus catalyzing the opponents of same-sex marriage. They give them a reason to base their arguments as accepting it would be breaking the law. On the other hand, the government gives the proponents a concrete reason to base their argument as they have a human rights clause in the same constitution. This brings in a strong conflict between the opponents and the proponents, with each one of them basing the arguments on the same constitution. The federal government is the overall government in the US. It has not yet legalized gay marriage even though it is the overall government. It has even sanctioned other states, which have not legalized same-sex marriage, to ignore legalizations done in other states. This brings in more controversy (O’Connor). Considering the case presented in Minnesota Supreme Court in 1970 between Jack Baker and Michael McConnell, the court dismissed their pledges arguing that the country’s law limited marriages to heterosexuals and this limitation did not contradict with the US constitution. They were thus denied a marriage license. After an appeal was filed at the US Supreme Court, the decision was different from the earlier made; the judgment was refusal to hear the case. This is different from ruling that the couple should not be issued with a license. Listening to their arguments in court made the people reason otherwise as they found that they were contradicting the constitution. This appeal in court changed people’s view on marriage as for companionship rather than for procreation (Romero et al). The judgment made in Supreme Court of Hawaii in 1993 on three homosexual couples was that it was unconstitutional to discriminate on basis of sex by denying them marriage certificates. However, this raised the issue of marriage been a basic civil right rather than sexual discrimination because they feared legalization of same-sex marriages would spread to other states. This pushed the US Congress to approve the Defense Marriage Act denying same sex couples licenses and failing to recognize them (Moreno and Wyatt). Gay marriage is accepted and legalized in a number of states in the US. Jurisdiction of gay marriage provides that if gay couples wed in their home country where such marriages are accepted, the couple should be accepted even in other US states even though those states do not accept gay marriage. Gay marriage has been accepted in states after filings were made in courts of those specific states by same sex married couples requesting for marriage certificates. Those are the times when it was realized that the constitution had contradicting issues. With the increasing rate of gay marriage in different states in US, there will reach a point in which gay marriage would be treated as legal drinking age. This would be pushed by the urge to respect human rights. The church needs to be separated from the people with the state legalizing gay marriage while the church would preach against it. The people would be free to marry people of the same sex but limited by their religious practices. All men are created equal is a motto that has helped in the entire country in giving all people equal rights (O’Connor). Legalization of gay marriages would affect the churches preaching against it negatively because they would feel that it has been ignored. However, it would affect the partners and the children they adopt positively as they would have a comfortable life with freedom. Anti-gay marriage groups feel that they are almost losing the battle because they have weak arguments. On the contrary, those who are gay feel comfortable that they are almost winning and would enjoy their rights fully. Some of the families of gay people might take time before they accept them but others would be pleased that their children are happy (Romero et al). Marriage definition Marriage is defined as the union between two people of different sexes who come together for procreation purposes. As a result, these people should bear and take care of their children. It is seen as an institution bound by love in which the two partners decide to live with each other not because they are forced but because they love each other. Different religions define marriage as a union between two people of different sex. They follow the verses in their holy books in which it is shown that people should get married to bear children. This way, they do not accept same sex marriage. Traditionally, marriage was meant to be between two people of different sexes. Even though polygamous marriages were common traditionally, the partners involved were still of opposite sexes. One man could marry a number of women but at least, the sexual relationship was between this one man with his many wives. Marriage was an entity in which the parties involved were believed to be one. They were recognized and respected in the society. Couples had to share all each had. In fact, there were no family assets belonging to either of the parties, but to both (Romero et al). It has been noted that traditional marriages were heterosexuals. Only a couple of the opposite sex was allowed to marry. However, these marriages are not working currently. It is absurd that these couples marry in churches, taking vows and break before a year is over. Domestic violence is o the increase and this had led to high rate of break ups of heterosexual marriages. This has brought in controversy. While the opponents of legalizing gay marriage argue that these high break ups are contributed to by the issue of gay marriages, the proponents argue that the break ups are high because opposite sex couples are finding it to cope and the only solution to this is legalizing gay marriage (O’Connor). The stigma There are several stigmas of marriage. The traditional fairytale in which a man was figured with a wife, 2 kids and 1 dog, has changed. Initially, a woman was to remain as a housewife, taking care of the family and kids while the husband was the breadwinner. This has changed, as wives need to work. Some women even do not give a priority to having children. A family is made up of happy couples (either same-sex or opposite sex), not necessarily children and a dog. Gay marriage is not accepted by people to be practiced in US because being a combination of states; it would affect the decision of those states, which do not want to legalize it. However, looking at it in the aspect of human rights and increased divorce rates of opposite sex marriages, it is wise to legalized it. The opponents of legalizing gay marriages are out to preserve the definition of marriage and maintain the country’s morals (Deamtteis). The ideas of functionalism define marriage as something practical between any couples who find themselves compatible. Symbolic interaction in culture should be between two people of different sexes such that same-sex marriage disrupts this. Banning or failing to accept or recognize same-sex marriages can be defined as discrimination in terms of sex because such people are not recognized or accepted simply because they are of the same sex. Otherwise, if they were of different sexes, they would be accepted. Gay marriage is accepted in Colorado because opposite sex marriages and especially in Mesa County have proved impractical. Gay marriage in larger metropolitan areas is not viewed with such negativity as in rural areas where they are interested in preserving their cultural practices (O’Connor). Conclusion Opposite-sex marriage has been defined as the definition of marriage over the years all over the world. However, with increased divorce rates, the definition of marriage is changing from the traditional definition of an institution between two people of opposite sexes for procreation. People are now viewing marriage in terms of companionship and, since, gay marriages are lasting long, the definition of marriage changes. The future hypothesis would be to see if there is any relationship between legalizing gay marriage and decrease in population growth because gay couples cannot bear children but bring up adopted children. Works Cited Deamtteis, Lou. “Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships.” New York Times, 2012. Web. 2 May 2012. Head, Tom. “10 Really Bad Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage.” About.com, 2011. Web. 2 May 2012. Moreno, Ivan and Wyatt, Kristen. “More same-sex couples in Colorado, census shows.” Aurora Sentinel, 2011. Web. 2 May 2012. O’Connor, Colleen. “Gay-marriage effort planned for Colorado's 2012 ballot.” DenverPost.com, 2011. Web. 2 May 2012. Romero, Adam P., Rosky, Clifford J., Badgett, M. V. Lee and Gates, Gary J. “Colorado.” Census Snapshot, 2008. Web. 2 May 2012. Read More