Public Opinion on Homosexuality and Marriage - Essay Example

 Public Opinion on Homosexuality and Marriage Introduction The question being discussed here is, “Are homosexuals being discriminated against or are they supported in the aspect of marriage?” In order to address the issue comprehensively and fairly, we need to examine the opposing public views on homosexuality and marriage and the reasons for their position to see if there were really discrimination. Then we need to look at the issue of legality for homosexual marriages, including what governing authorities, religious groups and civic or social organizations have decided in their stand on homosexual marriages. Is there discrimination there as well? Public Opinion on Homosexuality and marriage The crux of the homosexual debate revolves around the definition of marriage. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines “marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex” (Chabot, p.8). In other words, marriage is restricted to a union between one man and one woman and same-sex marriage, even if it is recognized by one state is not recognized by federal government and therefore federal benefits are denied to homosexuals. This Act has opened a can of worms. Those who support homosexual marriages argue on the basis of civil and religious freedom, financial viability and the principle of love. One writer argues that, “the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. Marriage by the state is a secular activity; the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should” (Messerli, 22 May 2009, p.1). In other words, one religious view should not dictate the view or lifestyle of another. Same-sex marriage is a matter of choice and the state has no right to deny homosexuals of this choice. Another argument states that “The right to marry the person that you love, have made a commitment to, and wish to live with for the rest of your life is a foundational human right” (Robinson, p.3). He also went on to quote a pamphlet by the National Gay and Lesbian Task which states that, "If legally married, gay, lesbian and bisexual couples would have a greater ability to care for and protect their families.” The financial benefits the pamphlet named included joint tax returns, joint insurance policies for home, auto and health, automatic inheritance on death, secure workplace and other benefits such as annuities, pension plans, medicare, etc. Most advocates of same-sex marriages also argue on the basis of love. They argue that just like heterosexuals, marriage to the homosexuals express “an emotional commitment by two people to one another for life.” (Sullivan, p.183). Hence, it would be wrong to deny marriage to homosexuals because love and commitment between two people is what makes marriage works in the first place. Hence, there are strong reasons in support of homosexuality as a lifestyle in society and there are advocates who argue for the inclusion of homosexual marriage as well. However, there are also those who opposed homosexual marriages. These people based their arguments on the sanctity of marriage, natural procreation and parenting difficulties. Ken Connor wrote in the Washington Post, "The growing attack on family and marriage is unprecedented in American history. Forces of radicalism are laboring night and day to deconstruct marriage, legitimize counterfeits, and re-define family in ways that would make it unrecognizable as the foundational social institution."  (Connor, Washington Post, 11 July 2003). Marriage is strictly defined as between a man and a woman. Allowing homosexual marriages destroys the sanctity and essence of the union between man and woman. One advocate writes, “Abandoning principles of human sexuality as given by God in Genesis and taught by the church for the past 2,000 years would have serious implications for societal stability” (Irwin, Part 1). Another argument against same-sex marriage has to do with natural procreation, which is something impossible between homosexual partners. As marriage is for procreation, the inability to procreate is evident that homosexual marriage is a distortion of nature and the sanctity of marriage. A Canadian member of parliament, Joe Volpe states, “Marriage serves as the basis for social organization; it is not a consequence of it. Marriage signifies a particular relationship among the many unions that individuals freely enter; it's the one between a man and a woman that has two obvious goals: mutual support and procreation of children.” (Volpe, The Globe and Mail, 12 Aug 2003). Finally, the opposition also argues that children need to be raised by biological parents, not people who are genetically unrelated to the children as that would raise difficulties for natural bonding and family identity. Homosexuality and marriage is an ongoing debate. As far as public opinion is concerned, there are strong arguments on both side of the fence. We live in a society in which opposing views are held in tangent so that society can remain diverse and free. In fact, the homosexuals themselves claim that homosexuality is becoming an accepted norm in society and in some civil and religious institutions same-sex marriages are also permitted. So while the Christian Church, as a whole, has consistently prohibited homosexual behavior, there are also attempts by some religious groups to “reinterpret specific Scriptural passages which deal with the issue of homosexuality” and make it seem like homosexuality is not a sin (Irwin, part 1). According to one poll, “being a member of a non-Protestant religious traditions appears to lead individuals away from opposition to both gay marriage and civil unions, whereas espousing traditional attitudes on morality and secularism makes individuals more likely to oppose same-sex unions” (Olson, Cadge, Harrison, p.1). There is no conclusive public opinion in support or against homosexual marriages. However, when it comes to the law, there are certain far-reaching considerations which make either position for or against a very complicated thing. Yet a clear stand needs to be taken whether or not to change an existing federal law or to implement a new law to accommodate homosexual issues. Does that law effectively discriminate or does it protect? This is the question we need to address next. Legislative positions on same-sex marriages A quick look at DOMAwatch.org reveals that currently 30 states have adopted marriage amendments, only 5 states have neither a statute nor a constitutional provision prohibiting same-sex marriage, while Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont are the only states that have legalized same-sex marriage (Alliance Defense Fund, 2008). According to a poll done on the political views of federal marriage amendment, Olson, Cadge and Harrison have found that “among the statistically significant predictors in the model, political conservatism is by far the strongest predictor of support for a Federal Marriage Amendment” (Olson, Cadge, Harrison,p.1). Conservatives, in other words, believe in traditional values and therefore they tend to oppose same-sex marriage and support an amendment to prohibit gay marriages. In the California legislature in 1999, same-sex couples were given state-wide domestic partner registry and domestic partners are defined as “two adults who have chosen to share one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring”(Young, p.147). The problem, however, is that the “Domestic Partner Act” cannot provide these partners with all the rights granted to married persons under federal law. Hence, they have no federal benefits with regards to social security, medicare, federal housing and federal income tax purposes. Then in 2004, in the city and county of San Francisco, marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples but those marriages were later voided and on November 4, 2008, Proposition 8 was voted by the people and passed which states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”(California Constitution, Section 7.5). It is the first time a state has conceded to same-sex marriage and then withdrawn it, thus reflecting the complication involved in government legislation on gay marriages. The Californian government had tried to make domestic partnership legal to compensate for not allowing marriages but the people are the ones who voted against same-sex marriage. In conclusion, the legalizing or not legalizing of homosexual marriages is not necessarily a reflection of discrimination against homosexuals. It reflects a delicate balance between recognizing homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and respecting the rights of others to protect the traditional definition of marriage. So while there are governments that forbid same-sex marriages, they do so to protect the rights of homosexuals and heterosexuals from further discrimination and potential clashes that would bring about more harm than good. It is an attempt to strike a compromise without taking a discriminatory stand. President Barack Obama summarizes it well when he states that he is a supporter of civil unions but, “I have been unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understanding of the traditional definition of marriage” (Obama, p.1). Some religious groups, also, who have voiced loudly against homosexual marriages have only expressed an opinion and do not necessarily constitute discrimination because they have no governing authority to enforce their stand. On a personal note, it is perhaps insightful to quote a Christian man, Lehman Strauss. He was addressing a question on the attitude a Christian ought to have towards homosexuals, and he said, “We must always keep before us this fact that homosexuals, like all of us sinners, are the objects of God’s love.”(Lehman, p.1). Sources cited: Steve Chabot. “Defense of Marriage Act.” Defense of Marriage Act Hearing before Subcommittee on the Constitution. Web. 30 March 2004 and in FDCH Congressional Testimony (n.d.): MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO.Web. 15 Oct 2010. Joe Messerli. “Should Same-Sex Marriage be legalized?” Web. 24 May 2009. B.A.Robinson. “Same-Sex Marriage: Eight Reasons why they are Desirable, with Rebuttals.” Religious Tolerance. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Web. 2 Nov 2006. Andrew Sullivan, "Virtually Normal," Alfred A. Knopf, 1995. Ken Connor, "A final word..." Ken Connor, Family Research Council Washington Update, 11 July 2003.  Washington Post. Web. 4 Sep 2001. < http://www.washingtonpost.com/> Joe Volpe, "We're for due process, not against gay rights," The Globe and Mail, Web. 12 Aug 2003. < http://www.globeandmail.ca/> Ben Irwin. The Bible and Homosexuality – Confronting the Challenge to Scriptural Authority. Ed. Robert H.Knight. Washington, DC: Family Research Council, 1997. Print. Laura R. Olson, Wendy Cadge, and James T Harrison. “Religion and Public Opinion about Same-sSex Marriage.” Social Science Quarterly 87.2 (2006): 340-360. ABI/INFORM Global. ProQuest. Web. 25 October 2010. Alliance Defense Fund. DOMAwatch.org. Web. 2008. Judith A.Young.”Same-Sex Marriage in California: After Proposition 8 Passed.” Lincoln Law Review 36 (2008):131-197. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO.Web. 20 October 2010. Joe Sudbay, Duncan Black. Barbara Morrill, Jon Amato and Barack Obama. “Obama’s Interview with progressive bloggers (full transcript)” in Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Web. 29 October 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ Lehman Strauss. “Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective.” Free NET Bible. Bible.org. Web. 3 November 2010. < http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective> Read More