The Evolution of Views upon Gay Marriages - Research Proposal Example

Should Same-Sex Marriages Be Legalized? 2009 Outline: A. Introduction: general overview. B. Development of views upon homosexual marriages C. Conclusion Foreword: This research paper discusses the evolution of views (both in the society and research publications) upon gay marriages. Marriage, at large, is two people’s union that is acknowledged on the part of society. Such factors as having children, being affected to each other, having common property, living together and even having official recognition are not necessary. Yet it is normally taken for granted by the majority of people that marriages are concluded between two people of different sexes. Gay and lesbian marriages are very often criticized, even though it seems that they have always existed, even if they were not acknowledged by the society and the law: In the course of history there have been plenty of examples of unities of people of the same gender, and these unities had all features of an “ordinary” marriage – tutors and their and their students in Sparta, legalized homosexual relationships in Ancient Greece, etc. However, in the modern society this issue faces very different approaches, and whereas some researchers claim that it is the question of gay rights to conclude marriages, the majority of people is still against them and proclaims them unnatural as they do not yield children. Most efforts by major gay groups to address family and relationship issues have tried to expand the definition of family through piecemeal legislation and litigation, and through so-called domestic partnership laws that confer limited rights on gay couples but fall far short of marriage. (Graff & Rotello 1996) In many countries of the world, homosexual marriages are now legalized – from Dania to the United Kingdom. At the same time, neither of the countries that allow gay persons to get married, proclaims equal rights for the homosexual couples as compared to the traditional ones. Thus, it is possible to say that the attitude towards this issue in the modern society is dubious: on the one hand, certain people admit that the gay people should be given the right to get married, but do not really consider this issue as a problem; whereas others are against homosexual marriages. If you conduct a little poll and ask randomly several people at the street about their opinion concerning the gay rights, most probably they will be tolerant to them when it comes to the equality at the workplace, in social servicing, etc…. But concerning homosexuals getting married – the majority of popularity will oppose this option. Although most Americans are indeed opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage, large numbers of these same Americans do not consider homosexuality itself a sin, and they welcome greater tolerance for homosexuals. Favoring equality, they do not wish to see anyone denied his rights. It is the seeming ambiguity in this position that has been seized upon by activists to stigmatize any opposition to same-sex marriage as evidence of homophobia, or prejudice against homosexuals per se. But a hirer way of putting it would be to say that we have allowed a muddled understanding of democracy to subvert our capacity to speak on behalf of those human forms and traditions upon which democracy itself crucially depends. (Kurtz 2000) Still, it is different for each particular country. In Canada, for example, the overall public support for gays and lesbians having full rights (including the right to get married) is very significant – according to public opinion surveys, about 53% of Canadians want homosexuals to have legal spousal rights: Canadian gay and lesbian activists gave credit for public opinion support of gay and lesbian rights to the deliberate strategy of gay and lesbian organizations to take their case to the public one step at a time. When Canadians saw how vindictive and cruel the opposition was, they came to the aid of gays and lesbians because they did not want to be identified with the opposition. Whether crediting gay and lesbian strategy is deserved may be debatable. Nevertheless, the polling data indicates that public opinion in Canada supports full rights for gays and lesbians. (Mazur 2002) Why? Of course there is certain prejudice on the part of the society. It would be unjust to deny that. In our society, there are certain stereotypes about gay couples – they are normally seen as non-prone to faithfulness and commitment. But on the other hand, gay and lesbian people are, indeed, less picky in establishing sexual relationships. Although, of course, the same is true for some heterosexuals. Also there is a common belief that homosexuality is just a “whim”, and these people can easily change and become straight. Without getting into accusations of this sort, and surely without any trace of homophobia, I still stick to the belief that homosexual marriages should not be legalized. The main question is – what is the point for homosexuals to get married? Does such a marriage not lack any sense – after all, apart from material obligations that both partners acquire and the social benefits they might get, gay marriages are unnecessary? Why concluding a marriage that does not even have any chance to produce children – since adopting children by homosexual couples is another issue that arises heated arguments? It is often stated that children adopted by the homosexuals might be influenced by the sexual preferences of their new parents, and in case of a gay family adopting a boy, there are often suspicions that this boy is going to be abused either in the childhood, or will become a sexual partner for one or both foster once he grows up. The general tendency of tackling the issue of homosexual marriages nowadays is attempts to prove that allowing gays to get married is just a question of sticking to human rights. The following viewpoint is quite common: marriage is not something that the Government should regulate, as it is a private affair of each member of the society. Such a liberal standpoint is quite common among people nowadays; apart from those who are deeply into religion that mainly still opposes homosexual marriages as sinful and evil. For instance, Report on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples in New York that was issued as a result of heated debate concerning the legislation permitting same-sex civil unions in Vermont, proclaims banning gay marriages or recognizing them as anti-constitutional: The constitutionality of measures denying recognition of same-sex marriage is in doubt, especially in light of the United States Supreme Courts apparent shift in its consideration of gay and lesbian rights. Fifteen years ago, the Court found that a state sodomy statute enforced only against homosexuals violated no constitutionally protected rights. In contrast, in 1996, the Court found that by subjecting one group to a disadvantage that no other group had to suffer, a state constitutional amendment that barred anti-discrimination measures protecting lesbians and gay men violated the United States Constitutions Equal Protection Clause. In so doing, the Court took the remarkable step of invoking the landmark dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson in the opening paragraph of its decision: "[T]he Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens. Unheeded then, those words now are understood to state a commitment to the laws neutrality where the rights of persons are at stake." The Court made clear that it would not countenance a legal distinction that raised the "inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected." (Report on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples in New York 2004, p. 70) However, it is hardly possible to completely eliminate the state from considering this problem, as it is the state that is actually granted the power to legalize any official relationships between people, and it provides certain categories of people with different sorts of exemptions and benefits, as well as ensures particular rights of the married partners, such as inheriting each other’s property, getting discounts, etc. So, legal marriage presupposes both partners’ having rights and duties, and that is what important for homosexuals when they claim their right to conclude marriages. It should also be emphasized that some of the gay activists deny the legalization of marriage despising it and considering it the product of the “pan-heterosexual” society that has always suppressed gays and lesbians. People sticking to this standpoint reject all values of this society that seems hostile to them, including traditional marriages and family. As Graff & Rotello report: Many leading lesbian and gay activists still have basic misgivings about marriage itself. The gay movement retains a powerful antipathy to "heterosexist norms," especially the straitjacket of enforced gender roles and partnerships, in favor of a more fluid vision of personal and sexual freedom. Indeed, many gay and lesbian idealists dont want to join mainstream culture so much as have mainstream culture join them. (Graff & Rotello 1996) It is quite clear that the views of modern researchers on the problem of gay and lesbian marriages are very different and are probably influences by each person’s own outlook and beliefs. The general tendency is to let people find their place in the society, and their way to be happy, no matter what sexual orientation they have. However, as for me, whereas people should try to get rid of false stereotypes about gays and lesbians, so that the society is more just and tolerant, still homosexual marriages should not be made legal. Annotated Bibliography 1. Graff, E.J. & Rotello, Gabriel. “To Have and to Hold: The Case for Gay Marriage”, The Nation, 1996, 262, 25. I found this source very valuable for my research because to be honest, the majority of sources I found were supportive of gay marriages, whereas I myself am against them. And in this magazine article it is shown that the gay activists have misgivings about the concept of marriage itself, and many homosexual movements still have antipathy towards the norms of society, especially when it comes to gender roles, sexual freedom, and commitment. This makes it easier to see why homosexual marriage is not something that is worth to struggle for. 2. Kurtz, Stanley N. “What Is Wrong with Gay Marriage”, Commentary, 2000, 110, 2. In his article, Stanley Kurtz writes about the dangers that acknowledging gay marriages might bring to the society, among which there is the oppression of the majority by the minority. He differentiates very well between the claims of those who yearn “equal democratic rights” and the real position of gay people in the society, and, same as the authors of the previous article, emphasized that the gay activists often rebel against the values and norms of the “traditional” society. So what’s the need then for them to get married? 3. Mazur, Paul. “Gay and Lesbian Rights in Canada: A Comparative Study”, International Journal of Public Administration, 2002, 25, 1. This study was interesting for me because I wanted to compare the situation in the USA and another country of the world (Canada). It seems that the Canadian homosexuals have made more success in fighting for their rights. 4. “Report on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples in New York”. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 2004, 13, 1. Published by: the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committeee on Lesbian and Gay Rights, Committee on Sex and Law and Committee on Civil Rights. I included this report into the list of the sources I researched for my paper because it presents a viewpoint alternative to mine. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committeee on Lesbian and Gay Rights, Committee on Sex and Law and Committee on Civil Rights that have issues this report support the viewpoint that same-sex couples should be given full rights to get married. The report is interesting because although its predominant focus is on New York, it analyses the situation at both federal and constitutional levels. Read More

Favoring equality, they do not wish to see anyone denied his rights. It is the seeming ambiguity in this position that has been seized upon by activists to stigmatize any opposition to same-sex marriage as evidence of homophobia, or prejudice against homosexuals per se. But a hirer way of putting it would be to say that we have allowed a muddled understanding of democracy to subvert our capacity to speak on behalf of those human forms and traditions upon which democracy itself crucially depends.

(Kurtz 2000) Still, it is different for each particular country. In Canada, for example, the overall public support for gays and lesbians having full rights (including the right to get married) is very significant – according to public opinion surveys, about 53% of Canadians want homosexuals to have legal spousal rights: Canadian gay and lesbian activists gave credit for public opinion support of gay and lesbian rights to the deliberate strategy of gay and lesbian organizations to take their case to the public one step at a time.

When Canadians saw how vindictive and cruel the opposition was, they came to the aid of gays and lesbians because they did not want to be identified with the opposition. Whether crediting gay and lesbian strategy is deserved may be debatable. Nevertheless, the polling data indicates that public opinion in Canada supports full rights for gays and lesbians. (Mazur 2002) Why? Of course there is certain prejudice on the part of the society. It would be unjust to deny that. In our society, there are certain stereotypes about gay couples – they are normally seen as non-prone to faithfulness and commitment.

But on the other hand, gay and lesbian people are, indeed, less picky in establishing sexual relationships. Although, of course, the same is true for some heterosexuals. Also there is a common belief that homosexuality is just a “whim”, and these people can easily change and become straight. Without getting into accusations of this sort, and surely without any trace of homophobia, I still stick to the belief that homosexual marriages should not be legalized. The main question is – what is the point for homosexuals to get married?

Does such a marriage not lack any sense – after all, apart from material obligations that both partners acquire and the social benefits they might get, gay marriages are unnecessary? Why concluding a marriage that does not even have any chance to produce children – since adopting children by homosexual couples is another issue that arises heated arguments? It is often stated that children adopted by the homosexuals might be influenced by the sexual preferences of their new parents, and in case of a gay family adopting a boy, there are often suspicions that this boy is going to be abused either in the childhood, or will become a sexual partner for one or both foster once he grows up.

The general tendency of tackling the issue of homosexual marriages nowadays is attempts to prove that allowing gays to get married is just a question of sticking to human rights. The following viewpoint is quite common: marriage is not something that the Government should regulate, as it is a private affair of each member of the society. Such a liberal standpoint is quite common among people nowadays; apart from those who are deeply into religion that mainly still opposes homosexual marriages as sinful and evil.

For instance, Report on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples in New York that was issued as a result of heated debate concerning the legislation permitting same-sex civil unions in Vermont, proclaims banning gay marriages or recognizing them as anti-constitutional: The constitutionality of measures denying recognition of same-sex marriage is in doubt, especially in light of the United States Supreme Courts apparent shift in its consideration of gay and lesbian rights. Fifteen years ago, the Court found that a state sodomy statute enforced only against homosexuals violated no constitutionally protected rights.

Read More