Institutionalizing Same-Sex Relationship Through Marriage - Article Example

alizing Same-Sex Relationship Through Marriage The issue of same-sex marriage, or more popularly termed as gay marriage, is as hot as theUnited States polls. In fact, it has been one of the most debated on and most controversial issues that the candidates have been asked about. In a November 3, 2008 airing of MTV’s “Ask Obama”, then Presidential Candidate, and now President-elect Barack Obama straightly said that he is not in favor of gay marriage as he believes that marriage should only be between man and woman. He clarified, however, that he is also not in favor of ending the constitutional legality of gay marriage in California, on the premise that constitutions are not to be played around with only to prohibit “somebody who cares about another person”. Like Obama, other leaders, scholars and ordinary citizens alike are in the middle of a big question: must gay marriage be allowed or not? Convictions – whether moral, cultural or otherwise - play a big part in peoples’ outlook of the issue. I believe that it is the right of every citizen in this world to openly express his/her feelings, be it with the opposite sex or with somebody of the same sex, and that, for two people who are in-love and committed to each other, a legal union through marriage should be granted them by any government. I am, therefore, for the institutionalization of same-sex or gay relationships through marriage. But why has this been a very elusive dream for people like me? Why has it been so hard for governments, be it in the more liberal Western countries or in the more conservative societies in Asia? There have been several arguments used against same sex marriage. The most dominant of which, and the first that I will tackle here, is the moralists’ (basically Catholic church and the Protestant/Christian groups) argument that same-sex marriage is an abomination to God, who created only man and woman in the persons of Adam and Eve, respectively. Moralists regard all Bible passages as instructive in todays society, and, as they claim, the Bible condemns all homosexual (or same-sex) behaviors as sinful regardless of the nature, and that homosexuality is a choice which is against the nature of man or woman, an abnormal, and perverted lifestyle which God condemns. I believe that for policy-makers to base their decisions on the moralists’ claims is tantamount to favoring only one or two religions at the expense of others’ rights – which is totally against the Constitutional provision of the separation of “church” and state. It is clear in the Constitution and in the basic human rights provisions that no religion or religious groups should be favored by the state. Therefore in the issue of same sex marriage, it is a weak and unfair excuse for any government to be persuaded by the moralists to deny same sex couples the right to get married and be recognized as such. Second argument against same sex marriage is that same-sex couples do not provide the optimum environment in which to raise children, because they do not have the man-woman or father-mother figures that heterosexual marriages provide. This argument claims that the risks of raising maladjusted and psychologically abnormal beings raised in same-sex marriages are high. The Catholic church openly allege that the education and welfare of children would be in jeopardy. This argument is not only baseless and unfounded, it also gives an illusion that heterosexual marriages guarantee well-adjusted, balanced, psychologically and emotionally fit individuals. It is practically contrary to available evidences that show individuals raised in same-sex couple environments are doing well in life and prove to be good citizens. Clinchard, Eileen Durgin,1996, provides a rich bibliography of articles on gay and lesbian parenting as a proof that same-sex parenting does not make any child abnormal. Further, Spanish cabinet spokeswoman Maria Teresa Fernandez De La Vega, said in an interview that thousands of children lived with same-sex parents and numerous studies had shown that they were no different to children brought up in heterosexual homes (BBC,2004). The third argument is that marriage is a sacred union intended for procreation, to ensure the continuation of human species. As such, marriage is obviously exclusive for man-woman relationship and not for same sex couples who cannot naturally procreate. I totally disagree with this premise. For one, records show that a good number of heterosexual marriages have been without biological offsprings, for several reasons including infertility, ailments, by mutual consent, by choice of one partner, or that couples get married past reproductive age. Why, then, are they allowed by their governments or churches to get married, in the first place? Why then are they allowed to continue with their married status? The list of reasons for opposing same-sex marriages is almost endless. But there are also almost endless list of reasons why I strongly propose that same-sex relationships be allowed by the governments to be legalized through marriage, which, when summed up altogether, boils down to only one seemingly simple yet profound, vital issue which cannot be neglected: social justice. In the same interview cited in the beginning of this paper, Barack Obama pointed out that people or governments or anybody cannot just play around constitutions just to prohibit somebody from loving somebody. This was in the context of his stand on California’s proposed move to abolish from its Constitution the provision allowing gay marriages. He continued to comment that usually, constitutions expand liberties, not contract them. For me, such pronouncement powerfully sends a message that one does not necessarily believe in or advocate for same sex marriage to recognize and respect the basic rights of people to live as they are. No government, no leader, not even the now President of the United States, can ignore the fact that gays or homosexuals have basic rights and liberties. Indeed it is impossible for same sex couples to live a normal life in a society that does not even want to recognize them. It is comparable to illegal aliens – living, breathing, spending, earning, but “invisible” because they are undocumented. What are the implications of this scenario? Why can’t this go on forever? Not unlike the ordinary couples, same sex couples deal with the same everyday problems – bills to be paid, jobs to be done, a visit to the dentist, buy supplies for the home, visit a sick relative, and so on. Apart from being of same sex, same sex couples go through situations and circumstances that ordinary heterosexual couples go through. In other words, they are but human, no different from you and I. And as humans, they need to live like humans, and be treated like humans. One major aspect of life where many unmarried same sex couples have faced over the years has been the financial aspect. In the event that one of the two in a same sex relationship dies or falls ill or becomes disable, his/her partner is not legally recognized to access his/her accounts, shares, pensions etc. Even in taxation, as unmarried, same sex couples have to file their separate taxes which should have been lower had they been recognized a married couple. To cite a concrete example: in Sydney in 2002 Mr. Edward Young was unable to access a spousal Veterans pension after his war veteran partner Mr. Larry Cairn died. This was due to an existing Australian Federal Government policy against recognizing same-sex partners as legitimate beneficiaries of Australian Defense Force War Veterans, and only recognizes spouses of the opposite sex (Democrats, 2007). An article from The Economist, 1996 expressed clearly the sentiments and concerns of same sex marriage advocates, by writing that the government, by not allowing same-sex marriage, in effect denies the same-sex couples their rights. The same article states that, since the law clearly recognizes one and only kind of marriage – that is, man and woman - then the same law denies same-sex couples immunities and protections of the law which is ideally bestowed to everyone. These include the rights to make life-or-death medical decisions, rights to inheritance, rights to shared pensions and medical benefits. Furthermore, legal responsibilites of guardianship and care of the other is denied. For some, these issues seem trivial, but for those within same-sex relationships, these are real and pressing concerns. The benefits as well as the duties granted in a legal marriage are the expressions and concretized commitments of the partners. Same-sex marriage can be legalized. It can be done. With the necessary will to pursue it, policy-makers can concretize it into constitutional provisions and policies. It is not a totally strange concept or idea. Most of Europe and the Western world have done it. The Netherlands had been first to legalize same-sex marriage, on April the 1st 2001 followed by Belgium on 30 January 2003 with one restriction that you had lived in Belgium for at least three months. Spain came next, signing it into law in 2005. On July the 20th 2005 the Civil Marriage Act made same-sex marriage in Canada universally protected by law in all ten provinces and three territories, from the originally eight out of the ten provinces and one out of the three territories. On 30 November 2006, South Africa followed suit. (Wikipedia,2007). A few of the US states provide for the legalization of gay marriages, but most do not. And in 1995, then US President Bill Clinton created Defense of Marriage Act, which tried to prohibit the legalization of same-sex marriage. Consequently, Australia, as perceived by many to have been influenced by the US, Australia’s John Howard in 2004 also proposed for the passage of a similar bill (The Age, 2004) All excuses in the world can no longer contain the growing clamor for it. The call for governments and societies to wake up and open their minds to reality has become louder and louder. To institutionalize same-sex relationships through marriage is not a dead proposition. It is alive and well-supported by a growing number of awakened critical mass. Works Cited bidstrup.com,Author Scott Bidstrup, Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives, September 1996, Online accessed 1 June 2007 http://www.bidstrup.com Speakout.com,Author Jenny Murphy,Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Marry? Thursday, February 3, 2000,Online accessed 1 July 2007 http://www.speakout.com BBC NEWS,Reporter Unknown,Spain approves gay marriage bill,Friday, 1 October, 2004 Online accessed 18 June 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3706414.htm Australian Democrats,Author Brian Greig Nov 1 2008 9:22 PM EDT Barack Obama Answers Your Questions About Gay Marriage, Paying For College, More by Chris Harris, http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/20081101/story.jhtml Government shuns Gay War Veterans,02 December 2004,Online accessed 15 June 2007 http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=4292&display=1 The Economist, Los Angeles Reporter, Gay Marriage, Out in front,Page 36.February 21 2004 Economist.com, Author Unknown,Gay Marriage, Let them wed,Jan 4th 1996 Online accessed 18 June 2007 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2515389 Read More