Regardless of Sexual Orientation - Term Paper Example

Californians Embattled Over Gay Marriage Issue Introduction Considered a comparatively ‘progressive’ state, California has passed several measures which defend the civil liberties of homosexuals, progressive steps that most other states cannot claim. Proponents of gay marriage argue that it is simply a civil rights issue, that all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, should be allowed the same legal protections and privileges. The opponents espouse a simple reasoning as well; homosexuality is immoral and must be stopped at every opportunity available and that if gay marriage is made law, it is much the same as the state endorsing the lifestyle. The California Supreme Court is scheduled to decide early next year whether or not to invalidate the state’s ban of gay marriage which voters approved via Proposition 22 in 2000. This paper will more closely examine the benefits denied gay couples in most states as well as the political, legal, moral and societal implications involved with the issue. As people are becoming better informed about the issue, more are accepting, if not the lifestyle, the right for gays to be married. Constitutional Responsibility Separation of Church and State The argument proposed by the opponents of gay marriage is that the U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form of government in which elected officials are intended to set social policy for the nation. Legislators do this by representing their constituent’s moral views when drafting laws. Because the Constitution bars the intertwining of state and religion, the only method of ensuring that moral and ethical codes are enforced throughout society is through acts of legislation. When courts determine morality issues, they counteract legislation meant to protect the moral fabric of society and break down the constitutionally guaranteed separation of powers within the government. “When judges erode the power of the people’s representatives to set society’s moral compass, they likewise undercut the authority of parents, schools, and other community groups to set the standards they would like to see their children and fellow citizens live by. Indeed, it is a frontal assault on community values writ large” (Raul, 2003). Civil Rights Law The government was originally formed as an entity meant to champion the rights of the individual whether they are on the majority or minority side of public opinion. Laws that were enacted in the South disallowed the marriage between black and white people but were struck down by the Supreme Court. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act followed the tenets of the Constitution by prohibiting this type of discrimination. The opposition to gay marriage is based on prejudice and, as time passes, the concept will become more and more accepted. It, like racial prejudice, will become socially abhorrent (Sullivan, 2000). In addition, the disallowing of gay marriage by legislation violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “The law [against same-sex marriage] discriminates on the basis of sex because it makes one’s ability to marry depend on one’s gender.” The ACLU continues by saying, “Classifications which discriminate on the basis of gender must be substantially related to some important government purpose. Tradition by itself is not an important government purpose” (American Civil Liberties Union, 1996, pp. 14-15). The Legal Fight California Those who support and have lobbied for gay rights in California have been on the winning side of many legal battles in recent years. The ideologically moderate Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in association with a State Legislature controlled by Democrats has passed several laws that prohibit discriminatory practices and added responsibilities and benefits for same-sex couples. However, Governor Schwarzenegger has stopped short of advocating a gay marriage bill. “Schwarzenegger vetoed a same-sex marriage bill for the second time in three years, saying that voters or the courts should decide whether to legalize same-sex marriage” (Ainsworth, 2007). The Governor has said he would not, in effect, invalidate the 2000 initiative banning gay marriage passing by a 61 percent to 39 percent margin. Had this law been proposed just seven years later, it would not have passed by such a large percentage. The most recent data by Field Poll (2007), a nonpartisan organization, demonstrated that just 51 percent still are against the legalization of gay marriage and now 43 percent support it. Though these numbers indicate that within a relatively few years, more will favor than oppose legal recognition thus giving the issue a fighting chance. Some, such as the Director of Equality California, Geoff Kors, believes that Schwarzenegger should act now to sign gay marriage legislation. “The governor should not allow public opinion to dictate whether he signs a (same-sex marriage bill).’ Kors added that he ‘applauds the governor for signing more than two-thirds of gay rights bills but that Schwarzenegger’s promise to veto the same-sex marriage bill sends a devastating message that gays and lesbians are not equal” (Yamamura, 2007). Legal Fight in Other States Progressive Examples 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. However, an 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 progressive social change would “soon make legal protection for same-sex relationships a reality in Oregon, if not immediately through marriage” (Simmons, 2005). According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, about 60 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage. However, the same poll found that 53 percent were against a constitutional amendment outlawing the lawful acknowledgment of same-sex unions (“Civil Unions”, 2004). This sentiment has been reflected by some legislators such as those in the State of Connecticut who oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions. Gay rights activists had heavily lobbied lawmakers in an effort to legalize gay marriage, but they compromised on a civil union bill when support for marriage was rejected by most. A Republican governor, M. Jodi Rell, signed the bill last year making Connecticut the second state to offer gays and lesbians civil unions after Vermont. This law provided all the legal privileges of marriage. Other states, such as California, offer various rights under the classification of domestic-partnership laws, but these do not provide full rights. Rell explained that she signed the bill because she was opposed to discrimination in any form. While Connecticut gay rights activist groups applauded state lawmakers, they expressed displeasure that the law fell short of offering a comprehensive equivalence of marriage and that they would persist in their efforts to “work toward the day when there are not two lines at town hall, one for them and one for us” (Simmons, 2005). Regressive Example Shortly after Alaska adopted an amendment banning gay marriage in 1998, the Alaska ACLU took the State to court on behalf of several gay couples who had a partner employed by the state. The suit claimed that the government practiced institutional discrimination by disallowing benefits to employees’ partners because those same benefits were offered to the heterosexual partners of state employees. The ACLU lost in trial court but in 2005, but the state Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision. The court ruled that “the benefit system is discriminatory because benefits are extended to employees’ married partners and because same-sex couples are constitutionally barred in the state from marrying” (Gentile, 2006). Integrated but Unequal Moral Issues 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, have the right to sue on their partner’s behalf and cannot be forced to testify against them in court. Married couples also pay less in taxes and receive 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). In 1997, the General Accounting Office reported that heterosexual married couples enjoyed more than 1000 benefits and protections. These marriage incentives range from survivor benefits through Social Security, the ability to take sick leave from work to care for a sick partner, federal and state tax breaks and veteran and insurance benefits. They also include things like “family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to” (Belge, 2006). Legal Issues Following the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA), an amendment added to many states’ constitutional definition of marriage, many lawsuits have been filed all over the country against local and state governments whether or not they offer health insurance and other benefits to their employees’ unmarried domestic partners. DOMA prohibits the state governments from providing benefits to a dependent in a relationship that does not comply with the state’s constitutional definition of marriage. Both the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Gay-rights groups disagree with these amendments. Gay Couples Raising Children Benefit to Society 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. A Dose of Reality Those that oppose gay marriage have yet to provide evidence those 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. At least 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 the traditional couple do 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. Many believe that being gay is a choice and therefore individuals should choose to be heterosexual for the reasons previously discussed. They largely 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. Conclusion Homosexuality is multi-faceted involving true love and affection more than it is 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. Though California has been more progressive than many other states on the issue of gay marriage, a barrier remains, one between that of freedom and oppression. Works Cited Ainsworth, Bill “Groups jousting over gay rights in California” The San Diego Union - Tribune.  San Diego, Calif. Nov 12, 2007.  pg. A.1 (Pro-Quest) American Civil Liberties Union. Gay Marriage. California: Greenhaven Press, 1996, pp. 14-15. December 7, 2007 Belge, Kathy. “The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions.” (2006). About Lesbian Life. December 7, 2007 “Civil Unions for Gays Favored, Polls Show.” (March 12, 2004). MSNBC. December 7, 2007 Eagle, Jeremy. “Same-Sex Partnerships 2006.” Facts on File News Service, February 18, 2006. Gentile, Annie. “Employee Fringe Benefits.” City and County. Vol. 121, I. 5, May 2006, p14-16. Heil, Emily. “Gays Face Off in D.C.” Washington Advocate. I. 956, February 14, 2006 Kolasinksi, Adam. “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage.” The Tech. Vol. 124, N. 5, February 17, 2004. December 7, 2007 Raul, Alan Charles. “How Legalizing Gay Marriage Undermines Society’s Morals.” (December 9, 2003). The Christian Science Monitor. December 7, 2007 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.” (April 1999). Columbia Law Review. Lexis-Nexis. December 7, 2007 Sullivan, Andrew. “Why ‘civil union’ isn’t Marriage.” (May 8, 2000). Gay Forum. December 7, 2007 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. Tucker, Brian. “Constitutional Amendments to Ban Gay Marriage.” Crain’s Cleveland Business. Vol. 27, I. 24, June 12, 2006. Yamamura, Kevin “Fight goes to Governor” The Sacramento Bee Sacramento, Calif. (Sep 19, 2007).  pg. A.3 (Pro-Quest) Californians Embattled Over Gay Marriage Issue Summary As all of America debates the acknowledgement and legalization of gay marriage, California presently finds itself in the epicenter of this nationwide dispute. The U.S. was founded on many principles, one being that all Americans right for liberty and equality supercede majority opinion. California is on the precipice of choosing whether gays are treated as second-class citizens, much as were the slaves prior to 1865 or are granted full citizenship by approving gay marriage. In all but a handful of states, such as California, married couples receive many legal benefits that couples who live together but are unmarried do not. Opponents of gay marriage argue that lawmakers regularly draft laws that address moral issues and not just in high profile matters such as abortion, pornography and gay rights. The very moral fiber of society is at stake if legislators ignore the will of the people and do not act to ban gay marriage. Advocates of non-traditional marriage counter this argument by saying that there is no constitutional basis for denying legal matrimony to gay couples. The Constitution not only legitimizes gay marriage but implies that the government should never have considered a ban and should instead actively pursue legalizing gay marriage. As citizens of the United States, all people are guaranteed the inalienable right to pursue happiness. It does not exclude on the basis of sexual preference. 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. Marriage also encourages a family-type atmosphere in the house, neighborhood and community. 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. Title: Californians Embattled Over Gay Marriage Issue I. Introduction II. Constitutional Responsibility A. Separation of Church and State B. Civil Rights Law III. The Legal Fight A. California B. Gay Marriage in Other States B1.Legal Fight in Other States B1a. Progressive Examples B1b. Regressive Example IV. Integrated but Unequal A. Moral Issues B. Legal Issues V. Gay Couples Raising Children A. Benefit to Society B. A Dose of Reality VI. Conclusion Read More