Same-Sex Marriage Raised Hot Debate among Policy Makers - Essay Example

Same Sex Marriage For the last few decade, same sex marriage as raised hot debate among policy makers, practitioners, and governing councils. As a union between man and man or a woman and woman, same sex marriage has lengthy period taken the batter part of media. From some religious and cultural beliefs, it is a deviation from the natural marriage between man and woman. It is an issue, which has attracted attention not only in the United States, but also in the whole globe. Groups such as gay and lesbian movement have been advocating for legalization of same-sex marriages for years. In united states the controversy over whether to authenticate this union or not dates back in 1960s. Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals have expressed their dissatisfaction on the stigmatization, discrimination, and the violence they face in different social contexts (Lopez 2). The movement demands for equal treatments in workplaces. Countries such as Canada, Belgium, and Netherlands have legalized same-sex marriage. Netherlands was the first country to accept the same-sex couple in 2001. In 2003, Belgium recognized it and Canada legalized it in June that year. Other countries that have ratified this marriage include Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon, and Spain. This paper seeks to discuss this behavior and provides recommendations to the policymakers. Homosexuality has a rich history in United States. The rise of gays advocating for their recognition started in 1960s (Ambrosino 85). At that time, gay voices where very weak and only small population supported them. It was not until 1993, when the debate strongly hit the headlines. This occurred in Hawaii. This was immediately after the Supreme Court banned the law, which restricted the same-sex marriage on basis of unfair discrimination. The ruling did not become effective at the time, but attracted nationwide views. Efforts to amend various sections of the Constitution in different States gained momentum to incorporate amendments to prohibit the same-sex marriages. States such as Nevada, Alaska, and Nebraska made changes to their constitution to disallow lesbian and gay relationships. This happened in 1990. Massachusetts State was the first state to legalize and recognize the same sex-marriage in 2003. Civil unions came into full force to advocate States to grand the lesbians and gays their most much needed rights. Out of their efforts, several States have approved homosexuality, namely, New York, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia. There is a lot of optimism in gay and lesbian community, going by the past trends, that they will gain victories in many other states in United States (Confessore and Barbaro A1). In United States, many groups show their deeper concerns about their fears and speculation over the consequences of this new social order (Ambrosino 84). Some have supported and others bitterly opposed this new practice. Different legal and religious communities such as Christianity, Muslims, and Buddhism have voiced in their varied views over this matter. Catholic and evangelistic churches are in the forefront to oppose the move to legalize same-sex marriage. Division on homosexuality in the Protestant faith is evident, a section of them feels that the same-sex marriages should have freedom to marry, others completely object (Taylor A25). The Muslim community feels this is a violation of religious beliefs. Buddhists have differing stances about same-sex marriage. The liberals have no objections while the conservatisms greatly object the issue. The number of the opponents has out-numbered that of supporters with significant margins. The opponents raise many concerns about the same-sex marriages. To start with, they doubt whether there is any commitment in these relationships. They argue that the marriages are due to break sooner than later. They further point out that gay and lesbians’ couples are quite unhappy which is on contrary to a heterosexual marriages. Social conservatives believe that marriage is a health foundation of man and woman. Their fear stems from the fact that to allow homosexuality will weaken the already troubled institution. Moreover, they view that to legalize gays and lesbians’ relationship will give an opportunity for polygamous to marry (Lopez 2). This will be a total jeopardy to marriage. The anti-homosexuality groups continue to register their reservations over this issue. They further elaborate that one of the principle purpose of life is to bring forth life to this world (Ambrosino 88). They perceive that this is a sacred role to procreate and to affirm it, will change the definition of marriage. To them assert that it is not morally right to do so. Furthermore, it is against traditions and culture of humankind. In addition, they claim that it was God’s intention was to bring man and woman together through marriage for the benefit of the two and the society. It is through heterosexual union that the children can emulate the distinct traits, which their fathers and mothers possess in different capacities. They propose that same-sex marriages cannot instill these virtues and social norms to their children. This in turn leads to deviation from the sole purpose meant for the right upbringing of children. The anti-same-sex union also advances other reasons such as lack of complement between the homosexuality partners. This is because the two are almost the same in all features of reproduction. This has a danger to destabilize the heterosexual couples. The presence of both mother and father is very critical to direct children developmental process. Children derive much strength from their male and female parents, which gives them potential to be responsible in society. This potentiality might be lost if same-sex marriage becomes formalized. The proponents of the same-sex marriage cite discrimination in workplaces. They claim that people should not interfere with others life. They have many supports and are optimistic that unparalleled technological growth will enable them to have their own children. Scientific practices such as gene cloning will be a welcome and a justification of their much-opposed move. They further argue that people have freedoms to choose whether to marry a person of opposite sex or of the same sex (Confessore and Barbaro A1). According to them, any contradiction to fail to abide and respect these freedoms is a big offence against basic human rights and freedoms. There should be enough respect for people’s well-chosen choices The homosexuality laws where passed in 1993 because of discrimination of homosexuals in the Armed Forces. Since then, there has been differing stands among the Federal, the Legislative, and the Judiciary on the same-sex unions. Individual States have amended some Acts in the Constitution to grant some rights or completely deny the same-sex movement’s grievances. Federal government has categorically failed to recognize homosexuality. Massachusetts State was the first to give rights to the same-sex marriages in 2003. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made a landmark ruling, which allowed the homosexual couple to acquire rights to marry. Connecticut Supreme Court followed the suit in 2008 and later Iowa in 2009. Legislature played a big role in New Hampshire when it passed legislature to legitimize same-sex marriage in June 2009. In the same year, Vermont legislature and Council of District of Columbia enacted laws to support same-sex marriage. States such as California and Maine rejected to support of same sex marriage through citizen voting (Ambrosino 97). It is evident that different arms of government have played varied roles on this matter. The Senate together with Department of Defense convened a meeting in 1993 to discuss the homosexuality. At that time, they agreed that one’s sexual orientation would not be a requirement to join Armed Forces. Marriage laws need amendments to accommodate homosexuals. For example, enacting of to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Democrats support homosexuality. Bill Clinton recognized the rights of homosexuals and secured an employment for them. Barrack Obama’s government does still appreciate that homosexuals need to be some civic rights. The Republicans has maintained their opposition on homosexuality. There are no indications from the Republican side to support the Democrats on this issue homosexuality. Several organizations have emerged to support the homosexuality. They include, Gays and Lesbian associations. All of these organizations seek to enlighten the society to accept gay and lesbians (Confessore and Barbaro A1). In conclusion, the scandals and controversies brought about by states and homosexual relationship should end. Though some people argue for while others argue against homosexuality, the provocative question is whether to legalize homosexuality or not. This could however be a hard decision to settle at based on religious and cultural grounds. However, given the fact that many constitutions, which govern nations do not factor in issues on religion, I think it is time to accept homosexuality. Personally, I consider homosexuality as an immoral sin, but provided the homosexual behavior does not infringe my rights, I do not see the reason to forbid the issue. We have to embrace change. Homosexuals have their own human rights and freedoms (Lopez 2). Discrimination of this minority group is an offence by itself. This research recommends all stakeholders and policymakers to listen keenly to the voices of homosexuals. Through enacting laws and various amendments of Marriage Acts, this matter can find a lasting solution. Work Cited Ambrosino, Rosalie et al. Social Work and Social Welfare: An Introduction. New York: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Confessore, Nicholas and Barbaro Michael. New York Allows Same-Sex Marriage, Becoming Largest State to Pass Law. New York Times. A1, June 24, 2011. Lopez, Rex. Should Gay Marriage Be Legalized? Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2009. Print. Taylor, Kate. Gay Rights group Fires Chief, Central in Marriage Fight. New York Times. A25, March 6, 2012. Read More