Gay Marriage Issues - Research Paper Example

?Gay Marriage There has been an ongoing great debated in our nation regarding legalizing same sex unions. Although there are parties which support redefining marriage in order to cover gay marriage, there are still members of the Christian and conservative sectors that argue against it based solely on religious beliefs. But these religious beliefs have no basis in the American Constitution, more specifically, the Declaration of Independence and cannot therefore be considered valid arguments against legalizing same sex unions. I am of the opinion that gay marriage should be nationally recognized by a law redefining marriage in the constitution. The reasons for my belief will be discuss thoroughly in the following pages. But before that discussion, I shall present the history of gay marriage in America and the controversial landmark ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the legalization of gay marriage in San Francisco back in 2004. I shall have discussions regarding how countries such as the Netherlands have already recognized that these unions are valid and carry specific economic benefits for all concerned. I will touch upon the fact that 19 states beginning with New York, San Francisco, and Massachusetts, including California have already passed state laws legally recognizing these unions. It is my belief that our national laws and policies must be revised to follow suit or else it will fall behind the times and become irrelevant in our future societies. I will prove that in the long run, gay marriage is exactly what we need in order to cure certain problems within the psyche of our nation. In America, the first documented case of gay marriage license application dates back to 1967 when Michael McConnel and Richard John Baker applied for an Oklahoma marriage license. This was the time of the Stonewall Riots and a huge wave of change was taking over the gay and lesbian communities. (Eskridge & Spedale 5). The Stonewall riots were taken by the gay and lesbian community as a chance to have: ... marched out of their closets and challenged their outlaw status. Lesbian and gay activists insisted that the state should no longer treat them as presumptive criminals and should instead, treat them the same as it treated straight citizens. This was the first time that the once hidden in the shadows issue of gay marriage came to the forefront of a public debate that would run for over 30 years. The state was now in a precarious position. Do they allow the re-definition of marriage as also covering same sex couples or not? Marriage had always been defined as a union between a man and a woman for decades. Now that definition was being challenged and the state felt a need to protect the sanctity of marriage as defined by their understanding of the law. And that is exactly what the state legislators did. But true love will never be denied. To this day, in the states where gay marriage is not yet recognized, they continue to have life bonding commitment ceremonies and construct families by conceiving children through artificial means. They are in fact, leading the normal life of any traditional couple. However prude that the United States proved to be, other countries during the same time frame were already recognizing the rights of gay couples and treating them with the normalcy that they so deserved as citizens of their country. Denmark and Sweden were the first countries to allow and recognize same sex unions. In fact Denmark is noted as, in 1989, having been the first country to: ...enact a law enacting (almost) all the rights of marriage to same sex couples. These unions, were called registered partnerships. ((Eskridge & Spedale 5) Due to the approval of this law in Denmark, there was an influx of gay couples into the country coming from other countries like the United States, who took advantage of the law by registering and residing in Denmark as same sex couples. As an institution, marriage by definition has been challenged and revised by same sex couples across the globe over the past decades. Although not totally accepted yet, states in the America such as New York have successfully redefined the concept of marriage and allowed same sex couples to marry under the same rights and standards are hetero couples. Same rights and standards, words that are often taken for granted by traditionally married couples because they are legally recognized and under the law, their union is protected and given an equality that it rightfully deserves after years of living together. It is sad that while a large number of regular marriages end up in divorce, same sex couples, some who have been together for half a century of more, cannot get the same recognition even though their partnerships have proven to be more of a lifetime commitment that the others duly recognized by law. Mayor Gavin Newsom was on the right track when, for one year starting on February 10, 2004, same sex couples were granted equality of marriage rights under the state law of San Francisco. Mayor Newsom argued at the time that gays and lesbians also had the fundamental right to get married under the law. He further reasoned that: ... his pledge to uphold the California state constitution required him to overrule a state law prohibiting same sex marriage because it violates the constitutional principle of legal equality. (Snyder 1-2) His argument is coming from a place of sound judgment. If one were to go over the Constitution of the United States with a fine tooth comb, nowhere in the legalities of the document will he find an entry that bars the union of same sex couples. What we will find however, is that the Christian right have, for many decades now, tried to bar these fine unions of same sex couples by forcing the states to define marriage by religious terms instead of legal terms. Sadly, the ground breaking ruling of the forward thinking Mayor Newsom was overruled by the California Supreme Court on the basis of having violated the “separation of powers” a mere five months later. (Snyder 2). The Christian right and conservatives in the government argue that homosexuality is a mental illness that needs to be cured. They believe that the purpose of marriage is merely reproduction and thus, they equate marriage with the use of the sexual organ. Seth Brotherton (n.p.). argues that in order to explain why same sex marriages are wrong, we need to look at why reproductive organs exist: Now, the purpose of something can be determined by how it is formed or structured... This brings us to the question "What was God’s intention in giving us sexual organs?" Anyone who seriously examines this question must answer "Reproduction." The process of human gestation is so extremely complex, that it cannot be the result of chance, but rather of design. The above argument has been used by the small minded group of homophobic thinkers to argue for the illegality of same sex unions in courts across the nation. Sexual organs are meant for reproduction. The act of not using it for anything than its intended purpose is therefore a sin. The Conservative Christians also wants the public to believe that: Therefore, any sexual act that excludes the possibility of reproduction is not in accord with the intentions of the Supreme Designer, and is an evil act. This includes homosexual acts. Therefore, any sexual relation between people of the same sex is immoral. This obviously includes marriage. (Brotherton, n.p.) The problem with their argument is that same sex relationships can be traced all the way back to the time of Alexander the Great. Soldiers then would often go on quests that lasted for years on end, sometimes without a woman in sight and have to rely on each other for release from their pent-up carnal desires, often leading to more meaningful relationships and sense of brotherhood among the ranks. Therefore, the urge to love another of the same sex as deeply as one would the opposite sex cannot be called immoral. Their union cannot be a crime for their love and desire to be one is based upon the purest forms of love. Loving someone can never be considered as a crime, even if it is the so called gay love. The conservatives and Christians had a small victory in San Francisco for a time. But logical and fair minds prevailed so that the decision to ban same sex unions was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. After having reviewed a series of cases starting with Meyer vs. Nebraska (1923) all the way to Turner vs. Safley (1987), the Supreme Court defined marriage as a fundamental, constitutional right (Snyder 2) which recognized the right of even convicted criminals to marry anybody they wished. It becomes disheartening to find out that the Christian right and conservatives in the government refuse to recognize that which our forefathers had the foresight to protect. Marriage is a union of 2 people who want to be together. There as never any gender specific reference in the definition of marriage. That is something that religious groups insisted on propagating later on. These are the people who threaten the very freedom of the citizens of this country by wanting to block gay people from having the freedom to choose their life partners. In a way, it seems like they want to in effect redefine what democracy really means because of their irrational fear of anything or anyone that is different from their belief system. Snyder explains that the argument over gay marriage rights cannot be reduced to a majority rule stance by the legislators and citizens of the United States because: While it may be true in this moment in time that the majority of American citizens oppose allowing lesbians and gays the equal right to marry, it is my position that democracy cannot be reduced to a process of majority rule; it requires a number of other principles as well. Most importantly, by definition, democracy requires equality among citizens in order to exist. (Snyder 2) Aside from the need for equality among its citizens, there is another reason as to why gay marriage should be considered to be part of the rights of same sex couples. In her book “When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same Sex Marriages”, author Mary Virginia Lee Badgett presents the economic impact of such partnerships in the Netherlands where same sex marriages have been considered legal, with equal rights as traditional couples since 2001. Having lived there as a student with her partner for a year, Badgett considers the Netherlands as the first government to recognize their union as a same sex couple while the United States still shunned their partnership. In the Netherlands, same sex partnerships are subject to the same tax exemptions, credits, and rebates as the hetero couples. Marrying for them becomes a matter of economics instead of a matter of fighting for their rights (Badgett 3) instead. The economics of same sex marriages fall under the same criteria as their counterpart couples according to Badgett because: As a legal institution, marriage gives the state enormous power to recognize whether a family legally exists and, in many cases, whether a family can practically exist. this power allows couples to be together in a literal sense... Or the power can determine the conditions in which couples survive, such as the granting of healthcare and pension benefits. (Badgett 3) The American states which recognize the legality of same sex unions already acknowledge this fact and even in those states which do not recognize the union, insurance companies and other healthcare institutions already accept and allow the authority implied within same sex partnerships. Same sex couples both work and do their part for our nation's economy, it is important the states acknowledge their contribution and reward their acts of citizenship by offering them the same tax and healthcare benefits. We have to recognize that although gays and lesbians are not the majority in our society, we cannot pretend that they do not exist. They are not sick people who need to find a cure for something that is perceived to be ailing them. They are not possessed by the devil as fanatical Christian leaders believe. They may be a small percentage of our population but that does not make them any less human than that person sitting next to you on the bus. They need to be accorded the same, equal treatment as everyone else because their sexual inclination has nothing to do with their humanity. They are no less human just because they are different. One may not be in agreement about how gay couples lead their lives, which is why tolerance and understanding must be developed in our society pertaining to same sex couples and their lifestyles. They too deserve the right to love and be loved in the way that they want after all. America prides itself in being the land of the free. It is the epitome of democracy that the rest of the world emulates. We tolerate even those who attacked us during 9/11 and yet there is still a sector of society that chooses to be intolerant of those who are different just because their religious beliefs dictate that they do so. They fail to see beyond the sexual orientation and into the person instead. Having same sex preferences does not make anybody a bad person. They are just regular people whose existence has become taboo because of certain public misconceptions. Andrew Sullivan presents a highly important point while discussing same sex marriages for his article “Why Gay Marriage is Good for Straight America” that was published by Newsweek Magazine. To quote: ...have you ever considered for a millisecond that your right to pursue happiness did not include your right to marry the person you love? And that is why, over the centuries, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right to marry for everyone, citizen or even traveler, as a core, inalienable right, bestowed by the Declaration of Independence itself... It has ruled that no limitations may be put on it for anyone... (Sullivan 2) The Declaration of Independence insures that each and every American is assured of the right to “the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness”. If being married to the same sex is something that makes a person feel that his pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness is complete, who are we to judge it as wrong? There is nothing in the constitution nor the Declaration of Independence that dictates how those three important factors have to be pursued and if there are any penalties for not following what is considered to be the norm of society. So who dictated those rules? Christians and conservatives? According to a series of public polls taken from 1977 - 2004, Americans have started to become more understanding and accepting of same sex partnerships and unions. Although there are hold outs on the old school of thought on same sex relationships, America has shown that it is truly a living and evolving society as nearly all states from California to Missouri are now openly discussing changing the definition of marriage in order to allow same sex unions. Massachusetts already beat them to the punch. They became the first state to legalize gay marriages on May 17. 2004. The support for the recognition and granting of equal rights to same sex unions is snowballing in support. A new generation of Americans are now fighting for true equality regardless of sexual orientation. For this generation, gender is no longer an issue when it comes to marriage. Instead, it has become part of the dynamic of the modern family. Works Cited Avery, A., Chase, J., Johansson, L., Litvak, S., Montero, D., & Wydra, M. (2007). America's Changing Attitudes toward Homosexuality, Civil Unions, and Same- Gender Marriage: 1977-2004. Social Work, 52(1), 71-79. Badgett, Mary Virginia Lee. (2009). When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same Sex Marriages. NYU Press. SethB [Seth Brotherton]. “Re: What's Wrong with same sex marriages?” Apologetics. Apologetics. n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. Olson, T. B. (2010). The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage. Newsweek, 155(3), 48- 54. Snyder, R. (2006). Gay Marriage and Democracy Equality for All. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Sullivan, A. (2011). Why Gay Marriage Is Good for Straight America. Newsweek William, N., Eskridge, J., & Spedale, R. (2006). Gay Marriage: For Better or Worse? What We've Learned From The Evidence. New York, NY: Oxford University Read More