Same-Sex Marriages in the United States - Admission/Application Essay Example

Shannon Randall Eng 101 Module 2: Same Sex Marriages Barbara Crawford Same Sex Marriages In the United s, married couples receive many legal benefits that couples who live together but are unmarried do not. More and more, gay couples are insisting that they receive the same legal rights that the traditional, heterosexual married couples receive. Gay rights advocates believe that it is inequitable and biased to refuse to give certain privileges to any couple, gay or not. For example, marriage enables spouses to receive insurance through their partners’ employers. They are also allowed many other rights such as the ability to make decisions for their partner who is being hospitalized and have the right to sue on their behalf and cannot be forced to testify against them in court. Married couples also pay less in taxes and many other social and financial benefits but because gay couples are legally prevented from marrying, they are excluded from receiving the same considerations that married heterosexual couples enjoy (Eagle, 2006). However, fierce public and congressional opposition to gay marriage has built legal barriers which prevent homosexuals from marrying. Generally, those opposed do so based on ‘moral,’ religious grounds then attempt to justify these beliefs by formulating other various arguments which decry the practice. The Federal Government of the United states does not recognize the marriages of same sex couples, and is prohibited to do so by the (Defense Marriage Act), which states that marriage is between one man and one woman. This would threaten the institution of marriage. 50% to 75% of American support the equality of equal rights for gay’s while the same 50 to 75 % of American oppose same sex marriages. Although, there re rights in place for our nations citizens such as Freedom of Privacy, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, when same sex marriages are introduced the debate begins. Arguers believe that the church feels that it offends every thing the religion stands for. Freedom of religion is a citizen right to practice religion or be free of practicing a religion. Same sex couples have fought to achieve equal rights and the right to marriage for more than and a decade and is continuing the fight. Many states have what is known as a Civil Unions; Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage but only on a state level were as marriage is a kinship between you and your spouse and it is a relationship that carries a legal status and is recognized across cultures, countries and religions. In marriage and United State Citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non American spouse for immigration into this country, civil unions have no privileges. Because civil unions are not recognized by the federal government, couples would no be able to file joint returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections that the government offers to married couples. Federal benefits such as survivor benefits thought Social Security, sick leave to care for partner, tax breaks, veteran benefits and insurance breaks including visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to do so civil unions protects some of these rights but not all of them. In Oregon, voters passed a constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage which reversed more than 3,000 marriage licenses issued to gay and lesbian couples. A subsequent Oregon Supreme Court ruling which upheld the amendment also left open the option of civil unions. The day prior to the ruling, a bipartisan group of state legislators drafted a bill that would allow civil unions, a measure which was backed by Governor Ted Kulongoski. The Governor admitted that the bill “may be a little ahead of its time,” but also believed that the progress of social change would “soon make legal protection for same-sex relationships a reality in Oregon, if not immediately through marriage” (Simmons, 2005). Although many couples who had their marriage annulled by the Supreme Court were disappointed, many were pragmatic about the situation and reluctantly accepted the idea of civil unions believing that, as did those in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s, ‘separate but equal’ will ultimately be rejected by the majority of the people. Many previously married gay couples admit however that social change doesn’t happen overnight. Those opposed to gay marriage believe that these relationships do not serve the best interest of the state. Since they cannot bear children that would ultimately add to the tax base of a community there is no incentive for the state to recognize their union and provide them the benefits of marriage, an expensive burden to the state. Advocates of gay marriage have not been able to show what financial benefit their marriage would be to the state. “If sexual love alone becomes the primary purpose of marriage rather than procreation, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos” (Kolasinksi, 2004). The marriage laws, established by the state, ensure that the couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who benefit the state by having children. Those that oppose gay marriage have yet to provide evidence that children of gay couples whether biological or adopted are harmed by this living arrangement. Some have expressed fears that these children will be more likely to become homosexuals suggesting that it would be appalling if that were the situation (Sullivan &Baques, 1999).  In today’s world, the fact is that most children do not live in ‘Leave it to Beaver’ type households with a housewife and a father who works at the office from nine to five. 25 percent of children are born out-of-wedlock to single women who are predominately young and impoverished according to Bureau of Census statistics. Half of all marriages end in divorce and ‘traditional’ married couples with children comprise just 26 percent of U.S. families. “It is unrealistic to pretend that children can only be successfully reared in an idealized concept of family, the product of nostalgia for a time long past” (“Social Norms”, 1999). Gay couples exhibit similar family and societal values as those of the traditional couple while engaged in the activities of their daily lives. Other than the fact that one couple is of the same sex and the other is not, the neighbors would notice no difference. They cherish and are involved in family life, abide by the law and are committed to making their communities a better place for all to live. The legalization of gay marriage benefits society because the very obligations of a marriage itself discourage promiscuous sex which carries the advantage of decelerating the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and the costs associated with the treatment of these diseases. Marriage also encourages a family-type atmosphere in the house, neighborhood and community. (“Social Norms”, 1999). Largely because of objections based on morality, opponents to gay marriage suggest that the institution of marriage is a concern of the government and thus should be legislated for several reasons. The well-being of children born into a marriage is ultimately the government’s responsibility. This authoritarian role helps ensure the future well-being of society as a whole. The marriage license is a contract between the couple and the state. This legal document protects and provides for the children and wife if the contract is broken. Women and men have differing interests within the contract of marriage. Because woman can become pregnant, they normally take on the majority of the responsibility raising the child. Laws must govern this union to protect the interests of the woman and child, an unfortunate fact of life but a fact nevertheless. These considerations are not relevant in homosexual unions. Additionally, as time passes in the marriage, a man’s income generally rises while the woman’s appearance fades. Many men approaching or during their mid-life, seek younger women who are more attractive and make then feel young again. In this all too familiar scenario, the original wife, who has raised the children, possibly worked to put her husband through college or quit a career to have his children is now without a husband, a home and income as well if not for the marriage contract. “Since a woman has often invested years of her life in creating a home and family, the marriage contract is one way of trying to assure her that this investment will not be in vain” (Sowell, 2000). The marriage contract argument is flawed on several fronts. One, gay couples do have children. They may be children from a previous straight relationship, adopted or in the case of lesbians, a child born with the assistance of a sperm donor. The contract also protects the gay spouse in many legal dilemmas as will later be discussed in detail. The same relevant facts apply regarding government’s intrusion into marriage. Opponents to gay marriage also argue that in a traditional relationship, it is the woman that domesticates men. The man trades a promiscuous life for the stability and security of marriage. If both of the partners are men, there is no stabilizing force indicating that both men will continue to be promiscuous. This will lead to the breakdown of the institution of marriage as a whole. Society’s increased acceptance of homosexuality in general has already weakened marriage enough. (“Social Norms”, 1999). This line of reasoning also has many factual errors. Most obviously, it does not account for lesbian relationships. It seems to imply that they are free of fidelity issues and that there is evidence that traditional relationships suffer from less incidences of cheating spouses than do gay relationships. Taking into consideration that a very large percentage of both genders in a traditional marriage admit to having an affair and half of all marriages end in divorce, this argument has little credibility. Finally, homosexuality, if at all, is at the end of a very long list of factors causing the break-down of marriage. The cultural transformation of the 1960’s and 70’s gave women increased economic and birthing autonomy. This along with liberalized laws allowing quick divorces have been a much larger influence on the traditional view of marriage than has the general acceptance of homosexuality. (“Social Norms”, 1999). While true that the presence of women and the subsequent children act to domesticate lustful males of the species, marriage does as well. Marriage is not simply a contract, it is a social bond cemented by various expectations celebrated with gestures and rituals. Extending this cultural phenomenon to gay couples would strengthen their bond which could only strengthen the traditional union. “When homosexual couples can legally commit to each other for a lifetime, they, too, will be able to say to each other, ‘If you really care about me, as opposed to just wanting to have sex with me, youll marry me” (Rauch, 2001). Most probably, the majority of gay men want a committed relationship for much the same reasons straight men do. Without marriage as an option, homosexual couples are subject to less stable relationships which heighten the possibility of promiscuity within the gay community which is what those opposed to the idea claimed to fear in the first place. The concept of gay marriage is repugnant to those in opposition for religious reasons, not for practical or social concerns as has been shown. It would seem the government, therefore, should not be involved in the legislation barring gay marriage. But, of course, the government is intricately involved in the gay marriage debate. Many believe that being gay is a choice and individuals should choose to be heterosexual for the reasons previously discussed and base their opposition on this assumption. Of course they have no answer when asked when they made their choice of which sex to be attracted to. Very few people make the choice of the gay lifestyle and why would they? Who would choose to be constantly ridiculed and discriminated against? In addition, the conservative, right-wing propaganda proposes that homosexuality only concerns the act of sexual intercourse and believe it to be a perversion. Homosexuality is multi-faceted involving true love and affection, indicating it is not just about sex, much the same as the traditional relationship. It’s past time that being gay means being considered a second-class citizen by society and by the laws of the land. All citizens of the U.S. should expect to be treated with respect and equality. This remains the goal but the fact is, it should already be a reality. Works Cited Eagle, Jeremy. “Same-Sex Partnerships 2006.” Facts on File News Service. (February 18, 2006). Kolasinksi, Adam. “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage.” The Tech. Vol. 124, N. 5, (February 17, 2004). November 17, 2009 Rauch, Jonathan. “Give Federalism a Chance: The Case for Same-Sex Marraiage.” National Review Online. (August 2, 2001). November 17, 2009 Simmons, Todd. “Civil Compromise.” Advocate Report. I. 939, (May 24, 2005). “Social Norms and Judicial Decision-making: Examining the Role of Narratives in Same-Sex Adoption Cases.” Columbia Law Review. (April 1999). Lexis-Nexis. November 17, 2009 Sowell, Thomas. “Notion of Gay Marriage is Product of Sloppy Thinking.” Jewish World Review. (March 24, 2000). November 17, 2009 Sullivan, T. Richard & Baques, Albert. “Familism and the Adoption Option for Gay and Lesbian Parents.” Queer Families, Common Agendas. New York: Haworth Press, (1999), pp. 80-82. Read More