Gay Marriage in the United States of America - Coursework Example

Name College Course Date Introduction Gay marriage has received a lot of political attention. United States of America is undecided on the issue of legalizing gay marriages. While religious groups are resisting gay marriages, gay rights groups are struggling for their rights. About thirty six states in America have already passed legislation laws to prohibit gay marriages. Vermont State has passed legislations to allow gay couples and homosexuals to participate in civil relations. Other states have started to debate on whether to permit marriages of such couples or not. Unluckily, the disagreement has made the gay community in United States to be in a discomfited position. The majority of people believe that gay people do not have legal rights and as a result, should not be given rights of marrying. Few individuals think that people who are gay are like other straight people hence they are entitled to the same privileges and rights that heterosexual people enjoy. According to Snyder (2006), majority of American people at the moment oppose gay marriage. The attitudes of these people are motivated strongly by emotional response and religious beliefs that are preconceived and held deeply against same-sex. Critics of gay marriage usually make their moral arguments, claiming that the immorality of gay relationships and conduct does not justify the ancient marriage definition to heterosexual partners. Given that marriage is strongly associated with values and morality, it becomes generally difficult to persuade individuals to make objective evaluations of the presented data and take part in this debate. As of May this year, gay marriage was permitted in the District of Columbia and in eight states of United States of America. A total of thirty one states have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriages. Disputes about gay relationships and homosexuality have evoked instinctive emotions. Religious stereotypes, views as well as social pressures have contributed to the pessimistic preconceptions of gay people and lesbians. This has made the public discussion on homosexuality and same-sex to be dominated by confusion, disgust and ignorance. In consequence, lesbians and gay men’s efforts of seeking legal validation and recognition for their unions have been confronted with hostility that is mainly derived from negative cultural viewpoints. Because the society of United States of America gives considerable financial benefits to couples that are married, maintaining a negative stance on gay marriage denies significant benefits to same-sex spouses. Legislation laws of U.S. reflect the conviction that economic investment and sharing in matrimonial unions should be beneficial to the involved partners and to the society at large. Thus the American society anticipates married partners to make decisions about financial matters as a team. As a result, the U.S. law protects marital couples that economically contribute to their marriage relationship, while at the same time imposing major economic penalties on spouses that contribute to the termination of their marriage relationship. Those laws have significantly impacted the economic well-being of married couples, enabling the partners to make sound decisions to enhance their financial situation. In this manner, the legislation law enables the married partners to carry on their marriage relationships using financial incentives. Historically, marriage institution was defined as the union of a woman and man to give love to one another. At the moment, the traditional marriage outlook is being distorted by lesbian and gay couples who demand the same rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples of honoring, loving and cherishing their spouses. Traditionally, marriage was believed to be a civil and religious union that united a woman and man together to start a family and maintain the interest of the society. Despite the fact love was part of the union; it was not the only reason. In addition, the marriage was aimed at providing a socially authorized place for performing sexual relations. This has made the society to think that love was the only intention of marriage. Such shifts in reasons of marriage have also made marriage to change. Marriage is no longer a union based on welfare and future of the society and the community. Present American community has privatized its marriage views. This society perceives marriage institution as having plastic contours that aim to give emotional satisfaction to concerned partners. Moreover, the society sees marriage institution as having revocable and negotiable terms. Marriage started historically, being limited to heterosexual unions; in contemporary state, it slowly includes the idea of gay marriage couples. If love continues to be the main driving force in marriage and not the need of starting a family, then, it will be open to all types of partnerships. Currently, the United States does not allow gay couples to marry. A few American states like Vermont have gay marriage laws that permit lesbian and gay partners to enter into civil unions. In such cases, a formal ceremony is usually carried out by civil servants where the involved partners obtain a piece of paper that is similar to a heterosexual marriage license indicating that the couple will commit themselves to one another. Such type of civil union is typically not recognized in other states as lawfully binding except by the state in which the ceremony was performed in. Even after the ceremony, civil unions of gay couples do not get the same rights like the heterosexual couples do. Polikoff (2008) states whereas gay and homosexual marriages are not legalized in America, they are legal in Canada. The federal government of Canada in the last summer decided not to challenge the ruling of three provincial courts which asserted that denying gays, homosexuals and lesbians the marriage right was in violation of the constitution of Canada. Canada, Belgium and Netherlands are the first nations to give martial rights to lesbians and gays. Currently, there is a pending case before the State Supreme Court of Massachusetts to resolve whether prohibition of gay marriages in Massachusetts State is in violation of civil liberation laws. Although there is a common tolerance of lesbians, gays and homosexual civil unions, the United States as a whole is not ready for full-blown gay marriages. Below forty percent of the population in United States of American is in support of gay marriages. As early as 1996, President Clinton amended the Defense of Marriage Act, rejecting the federal recognition of gay and homosexual marriages and enabling the other states to stop recognizing them too. President Bush went on record for declaring that marriage institution was a union between a woman and a man. At the moment, popular opinion is not in favor of gay marriage. Even though Massachusetts State allows gay marriages ceremonies to be performed, American federal law does not allow the remaining states to recognize the gay unions that were performed in Massachusetts State to be considered legal. For gay marriage to be recognized in America as legal, every state will have to accept and recognize that such a marriage will not be a contract between partners to satisfy each other emotionally, but a contract between partners who will be committed to a permanent partnership. Many people are opposed to gay community due to various reasons. One reason posed by the opponents of gay marriage is that they believe the main reason of entering into marriage is to procreate. Since gay partners have no capability of having children of their own, they must not be permitted to marry. Furthermore, they argue that based on western region, marriage implies the union of a woman and a man. Even based on the proposed bill “Defense of Marriage act”, marriage is only considered as “a legal union between a woman and a man as a wife and a husband.” Hence any form of alteration to traditional marriage definition would further threaten the already weakened institution. The idea of making gay marriage legal is a very slippery slope that could easily lead to interspecies and polygamous marriages (Deakin 122). A sound analysis of gay marriages dates back to 1969 in U.S. The U.S. gay rights movement began with the Stonewall Riots which happened following a raid by U.S. police at 3 a.m. on Stonewall Bar in New York City in late June 1969. At that time, raiding by Police on gay bars was very common. That made lesbian and gay patrons to fight back on that occasion. The Stonewall Riots became the start of a political movement that sought after recognizing gay rights even in a period where practice of homosexual sex was illegal in majority of American states except Illinois. Between late 1969 and early 1974, gay organizations in America increased from as little as fifty to almost a thousand. There are many empirical evaluations of gay marriage concepts. Activism of gay rights in early 1970s payed more attention on personal visibility and liberation as compared to getting access to marriage institutions. Some activists of same sex marriage sought the right of marrying in 1970s; others completely rejected marriage as they considered it an outdated institution. The movement to liberate gay people greatly succeeded in late 1973 when the United States Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality as a non mental problem. In 1975, the American Psychological Association also declassified it. The increased gay community visibility impelled a well publicized reaction by gay-rights opponents. An example of a high-profile gay rights opponent was a former Miss Oklahoma Anita Bryant who was also a singer and founder of the group “Save Our Children”. She helped in campaigning against revoking local ordinances that banned discrimination that was rooted in sexual orientation. In mid 1980s, AIDS endemic news increased discrimination and homophobia of gay activities, and also made the gay community to organize itself further. After the death of actor Rock Hudson from AIDS made the gay community started shifting. In 1983 and in 1987, Congressman Gerry Studds and Congressman Barney Frank were the first Congressmen to openly state their gay status. The present national gay marriage debate was ignited by the Hawaii’s Supreme Court 3-1 ruling in mid 1993. Even though the case was taken back to lower courts, voters accepted the constitutional amendment of prohibiting gay marriage before the same issue was settled by the courts. The fact that no gay marriage ceremony was carried out in Hawaii, issues of gay relationship received a national attention and encouraged more than forty states to pass Defense of Marriage Acts that delineated marriage to be a legal union between a woman and a man. The federal Defense of Marriage Acts statute guaranteed that all states would not be compelled to recognize all ceremonies of gay marriages that were conducted in other states and disallowed gay couples from being given federal benefits and protections that married heterosexual couples receive. In December, 1999, the Supreme Court in Vermont collectively ruled that gay marriage couples were at liberty to receive the same protections, rights and benefits as couples of heterosexual marriages do. In mid 2000, Vermont State was the first American state to introduce civil unions that gave gay partners similar rights as heterosexual matrimonial couples get without terming it as real marriage. In late 2003, the highest court in Massachusetts State made a ruling that the state should not allow gay partners to marry. Unlike the ruling of Vermont Supreme Court in 1999, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts did not present the legislature with a chance of giving marriage alternatives like civil unions. Rauch (2005) posits that in mid 2004, United Sates Senate failed in its effort of passing amendment to the constitution to forbid the gay marriage. The U.S. only obtained forty eight votes out of the required sixty votes to pass the proposal. In late 2004, the United States House of Representatives did not manage to amend its constitution to prohibit gay marriage. It failed to receive two-thirds majority when it did not get forty nine votes. California, which has the highest racially diverse lesbian and gay population in United States of America, has played a major role in the present debate on gay marriage. In early 2004, Gavin Newsom, a San Francisco mayor, made the city to start giving marriage licenses to gay marriage couples. In March same year, the Supreme Court in California stopped all gay marriage weddings and further canceled gay marriages in August 2004. In May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court ruling in California reversed state laws forbidding gay marriage. Between mid 2008 and late 2008, about eighteen thousand gay and homosexual couples got married in California. In August 2010, Jesus Christ Church of Latter-Day Saints stated that marriage between a woman and a man was the society’s bedrock. The same year, the Bar Association's House of Delegates in United States of America voted in favor of gay marriage. The next day, the Psychological Association also restated its support for gay marriage. The following months, in his speech, Pope Benedict XVI uttered his gay marriage opposition indicating that the Roman Catholic Church could not agree on the legal initiatives that entail a re-evaluation of gay marriage life of the partners and the related family (Mello 315). Based on President Obama’s expression of his support for gay marriage in United States of America, various political responses to the situation have been put forward. The prediction of the likely outcome is that President Obama is likely to win more liberal and young voters in Florida and North Carolina states. Majority of advisers have pointed out that gay rights’ public views are changing rapidly. Hence president Obama is likely to gain more votes by his move. Many opponents of gay marriage will eventually support him this time round. Obama used the same move in 2008 presidential campaign. Given that it worked so well, gay couples will be excited too on his bid to be re-elected. But president Obama should be careful because social conservatives are likely to grant campaign time and more money to Mitt Romney who is his greatest opponent. Works Cited Deakin, Michelle. Gay Marriage, Real Life: Ten Stories Of Love And Family. New Jersey: Paradigm Publishers, 2006. Mello, Michael. Legalizing gay marriage. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004. Print. Polikoff, Nancy. Beyond straight and gay marriage: valuing all families under the law. New York: Beacon Press, 2008. Print. Rauch, Jonathan. Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and ... New York: Times Book publishing Company, 2005. Snyder, Claire. Gay marriage and democracy: equality for all. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. Print. Read More