Category: Same Sex Marriage

Introduction

Same sex marriages have been on the rise in the last four decades or so. Pro-same sex marriage lobbies have articulated that these need to be treated on par with conventional marriages. They believe that since most of the parameters that apply to heterosexual marriages, such as love, caring, commitment, fidelity, promiscuity and so on apply to these marriages as well. They see it as the exercise of natural choice, and refute the procreation aspect by claiming that they can have offspring, too. Testimony to this claim is the fact that no less than a quarter of the estimated 600,000 same sex couples in the US have adopted children. (DCruz, 387-8) They claim, with credibility, and backed up by facts, that when it comes to habitation, they go by the same set of conditions they have the same commitment to their children as heterosexual people, live a life in which they cooperate with each other in all major aspects of life, pay taxes and contribute to society. Thus, according to this segment, there should not be nay moral exclusion by these people should be viewed as the mainstream of the society. However, they ignore the moral and religious grounds. In a country where currency notes contain the words, In God We believe, it is a blasphemy to encourage this segment of thought process and legalize it. (DCruz, 384).

Problem Statement

Gay couples are looking for legal recognition of their right to stay together as couples and they want it to be legally referred to as marriage, which is socially, culturally and religiously unacceptable.

The solution proposed to solve the problem

The same sex couples want a legal recognition called civil union this should be provided.

Target audience

The target audience in this issue covers a wide range from an individual, committee, group and most of all legal authorities.

Action for readers to take

Once the readers are influenced by the argument it is assumed that they would move a social memorandum in favor of the argument and insist the authority to grant the gay couples the status of civil union and not marriage.

Alternative solution for readers

The readers may also take up the issue and organize a social referendum to stop the legalization of same sex marriage altogether. However, the readers may feel it would be lenient to allow staying together of gay couples without any legal status.

How have you handled these alternatives?

As per the argument, it is persuaded that human rights should not be ramified under any circumstances. Thus, allowance of civil union would suffice without any further allowance by the legal authorities.

Arguments

The total percentage of the gay and lesbian population is about 10% (DCruz, 380)of the population and their ways of life significantly ramify the normal ways, livelihood, religion and beliefs of the rest 90%. (DCruz, 380) Thus, it is recommended that the authorities should restrain from legalizing these minority populations in favor of the majority as it is expected of a democratic society. Measures should be taken to make the authorities understand the good of the greater mass. It should be noted that marriage should be defined in constitution to be between a man and a woman but gay couples or those who chose this lifestyle should be awarded the same benefits as heterosexual couples and it should not be called marriage but maybe civil union since that is what these same sex couples want. This is the only possible way to help solve this same sex marriage issue without hurting the social and religious sentiments.

In the simplest terms, same sex marriage, as the term indicates, is the marriage between individuals of the same sex. There is disagreement over whether this term is analogous to gay marriage, since some people can be homosexual, and could still be in a heterosexual marriage. Those who oppose the usage of the term gay marriage do so because they would like the genealogy to include what are called LGBT, or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships.

By whatever names they were called, unions between people of the same sex have existed since ancient times in almost all parts of the world; some prominent examples are those of Greece, in which an elderly man would cohabit with a younger male, in a manner strikingly similar to heterosexual practice. This often happened with the full consent of the family and the society. Acquiescing with an elderly man of considerable social standing was perhaps a way to climb the social or intellectual ladder. In ancient Rome, too, this practice is believed to have existed for centuries before the advent of Christianity. Once this religion was born, with its firm accent on marriage as a means for procreation, same sex relationships started to go underground, perhaps in view of the enormous influence the Church held over peoples daily lives. In the US, as late as the 19^th century, two women would cohabit and make commitments to each other, in what was known as Boston Marriage in a system. (DCruz, 382).

There is the argument that same sex marriages can never exist, since marriage is one that is a union between a male and female; hence, in this sense, the idea of same sex marriages is a kind of oxymoron, since same sex couples can never meet the most essential purpose of a marriage in the Judeo-Christian sense, procreation. Courts have traditionally held the view that marriage is untenable if it does not lead to procreation; seen in this sense, supporters of same sex marriages argue that even old people and sterile heterosexuals should be denied marriage. This argument, though, is defeated by the allusion to the point that with the advancement of science, it is possible for same sex couples also to have children. (Alderson, 1)

The argument that children of same sex parents suffer ostracism and become objects of ridicule in society is countered by the fact that once these couples of civil unions separate, due legal protection is offered to the children. This protection is far superior to and more solid than what is offered to children of heterosexual parents, who are not obliged to provide financial support for their children. (Bolte, 1)

Same sex marriage is contrary to natures creation; they term homosexuality the height of deviant behavior comparable to some of the most heinous acts, and equate its very existence to promiscuity and sexual depravity. Another extremely important factor these opponents of same sex marriages put forward is that one of the prime functions of marriage is biological; when same sex marriages render this impossible, how can this be considered as any kind of marriage? (Wardle, Strasser, Duncan, and Coolidge 97-100).

Another argument put forward in opposition to same sex marriages is legalizing it runs contradictory to established law while on the one hand, the government bans some sexual practices such as sodomy, legalization of same sex marriages would negate that, as this practice is accepted as common practice in same sex marriages, especially between two men. (DCruz, 388).

Also, the gay lifestyle should not be encouraged because a lot of research shows it leads to lower life expectancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Studies done by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, in the 1980s showed that male homosexuals had an average life expectancy of less than 50 years  more than 20 years less than the overall male population (NCBI, 1). However, another study in 1997, done by NCBI in Canada found that male homosexuals have a life expectancy of 20 years less than the general male population (based upon a prevalence of 3% of the male population). This shows that the gay lifestyle is not just another lifestyle like smoking or drinking but a lifestyle that can bring harm to society if allowed. The conclusion for this study example is that, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men and if the same pattern of mortality is continued, its estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday (NCBI, 1).

Additionally, because its a dangerous lifestyle the US FDAs definitions of blood donation does not allow the Red Cross and other agencies to accept blood from homosexuals. According to the standard questionnaire, men who have had sex with another man even one time since 1977(CBER, 1) are disqualified from donating blood because of risk of AIDS to the blood supply. Obviously, the risk of HIV infection is greater in those who practice homosexuality in the United State compared to heterosexuals who do not practice safe sex.

In addition, gay marriage offends all major religious institutions in America. Most religious institutions consider gay marriage to be a sinful act and recognize the religious sanctity of a marriage union. It is therefore important for homosexuals to recognize the religious sanctity of a union. The National Association of Evangelicals also considers the practice of homosexuality as a sin and if permitted will bring grave consequences in life (NAE, 1). Many religious institutions believe that allowing same sex couples to share a common alter with heterosexual couples, is a blatant corruption of society. For example the Islamic Shura Council, an umbrella organization for mosques and Muslim groups in Southern California, denounced the ruling allowing gay marriage and said Homosexuality is considered a violation of Islamic law(ISC, 1).

Marriage is the sacred union of a man and woman. It has been the mechanism that has allowed society to sustain generations with new offspring. Even with todays tolerant religions, same sex marriage is still an unacceptable practice. Society is so passionate about preserving the sacredness of marriage that it is one of the issues of national importance. Because gays are a minority of society, their will to marry cannot interfere with the beliefs of the majority of Americans. In 2004 during the elections, the electorate clearly voted against gay marriage. According to The Washington Post, the exited poll in 2004 showed, 22% of the electorate said moral values was the issue that mattered most in how they voted  compared to 20% who cited the economy(TWP, 1). Legalizing gay marriage is believed by many to weaken the foundation of marriage, encourage high-risk sexual lifestyles and end procreation. Gay marriages should not be legalized because of religious, political and medical reasons.

Conclusion

In view of the developments taking place over the decades, and in view of the openness being generally witnessed in the West to same sex marriages, there is likelihood that the day is not very far off when these marriages would be legalized. Another strong reason to believe that its legalization would happen sooner or later is that the West has a tradition of liberalism; the tradition that was the product of the Revolutions has touched virtually every aspect of life, and there is no reason to believe that only same sex marriages would be exempt from this sweep. In fact, it is a possibility all the more plausible considering that rights have been obtained, some easily and some after a struggle. It is rather anomalous that the US, which champions itself as the protector of rights and freedoms of all clans and cultures should still find it necessary to keep in place laws that are anachronistic to its liberalism-steeped attitude and philosophy. (DCruz, 384).

There should be complete citizens rights to these people and should be legally allowed to live as couples. Nevertheless, this would be strictly immoral. The sentiments of the mass should be taken into consideration and should be valued by the authorities. Thus, the only way possible is to strictly define the definition of marriage as per constitution. The institution of marriage should be well defined as a union between a man and a woman and not between members of the same sex. As for the gay couples, the institution should be referred to as civil union and not marriage under any circumstances. The same sex couples want a legal recognition and this term, civil union should well suffice. On the other hand, the sacred institution of marriage would be unaffected and the sentiments of the religious and social norms would be protected.

Works Cited

DCruz, Shani; Family and Sexuality the American Way; Gender & History; 13: 2; 380-388; Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Manchester Metropolitan University, UK; 2001

Alderson, Kevin G. A Phenomenological Investigation of Same-Sex Marriage. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 13.2 (2004): 107+. Questia. Web.

Bolte, Angela. Do Wedding Dresses Come in Lavender? the Prospects and Implications of Same-Sex Marriage. Social Theory and Practice 24.1 (1998): 111+. Questia. Web.

Wardle, Lynn D., Mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge, eds. Marriage and Same-Sex Unions : A Debate /. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. Questia. Web.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2008. Web.

Deem, Rich. Its Just Another Lifestyle: What Health Risks? 2008. Web.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Home page. Department of Health and Human Services. 2007. Web.

Ibanga, Imaeyen. Transgender Man Says Hes Pregnant. ABC News. 2008. Web.

U.S. Bishops Urge Constitutional Amendment To Protect Marriage. American Catholic.org. 2003. Web.

Abu, Laylah. Gay Marriage: Islamic View. Islamonline.net. 2004. Web.

Hogg, RS. Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual Men. British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. St Pauls Hospital. Vancouver, Canada. Web.

Same sex marriage in California has taken a different route as compared to the other states in America. With effect from June 2008, the state allowed and licensed same sex marriages, being the second state to take that step. The rationale behind this as indicated by a ruling made by the Supreme Court was founded on the need for protection and respect to decisions made by the citizens, in this case those who practice homosexuality.

This ban was however declared unconstitutional by the federal court in 2010, a decision that was granted full support by the United States court of appeal in 2012 (University of California, 2010). From this therefore, same sex marriages in California are being governed from three perspectives which are the law, Prop8 and the Supreme Court.

The perspective of the law, according to the federal court in California, indicates that the ban on same sex marriages is unlawful and against the constitution since it violates the human rights dignity of a section of the society. The Californian parliament voted in support of same sex marriages, making it the first state to take such an action.

This was however met with great controversy especially from the religious communities, most of which claimed that this was a defilement to the sanctity of marriage. They alleged that these kinds of marriages created an environment that is not fit for the healthy development of children. This controversy is what led to the development of Proposition 8, an amendment that was taken to the polls in 2008 (Head, 2009).

Proposition 8, which is motion supporting a ban on same sex marriage, was passed in 2008 by way of vote, since the proposition to ban same sex marriage got more than 50 percent of the votes. This was however opposed by the court indicating that it denied the rights of the minority for no reason.

They indicated that the law proposing the ban on same sex marriage had no legal ground but was only aimed at denying the gay couples the rights associated with legal and registered marriages (National Conference of State Legislature, 2008). The argument of the judge who supported this ban was that the society needed children to be raised in heterosexual families for healthy growth.

Five months before passing prop 8, same sex marriages had been legalized by the Supreme Court and this led to the bending of some laws which previously limited the definition of marriage to the union between man and woman (National conference of state legislatures, 2008).

Prop 8 was the first constitutional amendment of its kind and this explains why it was subject to a lot of controversy. This was opposed by the gay community who alleged that it required an approval of 2/3 of the legislative votes before being brought out in the public for the polls, a condition that was not adhered to.

The Supreme Court of California maintains that the ban on same sex marriages is unethical since every person is at liberty to make their own decisions as long as they do not interfere with other peoples freedom, a ruling made in 2012.

This court denounced the prop 8 ban, comparing this ban to racial or gender discriminations, which were highly condemned. It stated that this ruling failed to provide a reasonable ground for the denial of these so called human rights. (University of California, 2010). Still in the opposition of the ban, the Supreme Court went ahead to claim same sex marriages did not in any way affect the upbringing of children.

Still in this regard the judges of the Supreme Court required that federal state of California to revise rules related to the ban of same sex marriages. In this regard, the California university law publication article Sexuality & gender law:

Assessing the field, envisioning the future: symposium (2010) indicates that a family does not necessarily constitute woman and man, but any two people with a mutual consent to live together as husband and wife.

From this ruling it is clear that the Supreme Court supports same sex marriages and requires that any law that stands in the way of this should be repealed so that to give them privileges similar to those of their heterosexual counterparts (Leff, 2012).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the position of same sex marriages in California seems to be a great controversy to date. The gay citizens are few but with the backup they get from the legal body, they stand a chance to win in the debate. In the 2-1 ruling, it would have been argued that the sitting judge at that time was supporting his own interest owing to his sexual nature.

This allegation was however proved wrong when the judge who succeeded him maintained the same position (CNN US, 2008). They simply believe it is against human rights to ban same sex marriages. Therefore Prop8 appears to be losing its stand since it is discredited for lack of sufficient basis for the claims.

References

CNN US. (2008). California ban on same sex marriage struck down, Sexual orientation. Web.

Head, T. (2009). Reason to support Gay marriage and oppose the Federal Marriage Amendments. Civil Liberties. Web.

Leff, L. (2012). Prop 8, Californias same-sex marriage Ban, Declared unconstitutional. Web.

National Conference of state legislatures. (2008). Defining marriage: Defense of marriage Acts and same Sex Marriage laws. Web.

University of California. (2010). Sexuality & gender law: Assessing the field, envisioning the future: symposium. Ucla Law Review, 57 (5), 1129-1544.

The traditional vision of marriage in the USA is based on admitting the union of a man and a woman who love each other. Love and affection are discussed as the basic reasons for marriage. As a result, the purposes or functions of marriage are reproduction, protection, affection, and provision of social status. Same-sex marriages cannot guarantee reproduction and protection because of a lot of controversies associated with the issue and the publics attitude to the problem.

Discussing the idea of same sex marriage, Diane Savino focuses on the quality of peoples relations in marriage. Savino states that the fact of marriage cannot guarantee love, affection, respect, and positive relations, and the level of divorces is too high to speak about the role of marriage as a social protector. This statement is correlated with the acknowledged idea that the publics acceptance of divorce becomes higher. Thus, the idea of marriage is not connected with the idea of the quality of peoples relations.

According to Savino, those people who have the privilege of marriage cannot teach society to preserve the values proclaimed by the social and religious institutions because of violating them regularly. On the contrary, the decision of same-sex couples is considered and based on love and commitment to each other. The traditional vision of marriage is still actively supported in society in spite of changes in attitudes to the role of marriage. Following Savinos ideas, it is possible to state that same-sex marriages are fairer in comparison with traditional marriages, but this vision is too provocative to be supported in society.

Introduction

Same sex marriages have been described as many things; an affront to God, an inherent right by all individuals, a desecration of the sanctity of marriage as well as an expression of love between two people of the same sex.

There are numerous argument both for and against it with some citing its possible impact on adopted children, the degradation of society as a result of same sex couples, its affect on religious tolerance and the possible ramifications of social harassment due to many believing that the act itself is against the very principles of nature and evolution. What must be understood is that the concept of same sex marriages is relatively new to society with people still adjusting to the widespread proliferation of homosexuals

Same sex marriage can be considered a dramatic leap in legitimizing what most consider an abnormal form of behavior yet it must be questioned whether such a practice should actually be condoned. From a religious standpoint gay couples marrying each other is undeniably an affront to God and violates church doctrines which are literally thousands of years old.

From a social standpoint same sex marriages create undue social tension which may or may not result in violent repercussions for individuals belonging to the homosexual community. It must also be noted that members of the homosexual community are often thought of as carriers for various forms of sexually transmitted diseases and as such same sex marriages are thus connected to legitimizing a behavior that promotes the spread of STDs.

Furthermore, from a community standpoint same sex couples are often thought of as bad influences for their children due to a certain degree of homophobia wherein they believe that exposure to homosexuals may place their own children at risk for sexually deviant behavior. It is based on these various opinions that this paper will explore the various issues related to same sex marriage and will attempt to determine whether this particular type of behavior can be considered either positive or negative.

Impact on Adopted Children

One of the current prevailing arguments against same sex marriage is the notion that since same sex couples normally adopt children in order to start a family then children adopted by such couples are at risk in developing the same sexual orientation as their parents (SOLODNIKOV and CHKANIKOVA, 38 – 59).

The logic behind this particular idea stems from the belief that since children develop their behaviors, personalities and sexual characteristics based on what they observe from their parents then it is likely that children adopted by same sex couples will become gay themselves. It is based on this that it argued children should be free to choose their own sexual characteristics and not be negatively influenced by those that adopt them.

In fact it is due to this particular line of reasoning that during the late 1990s it was noted that adoption procedures for gay couples was often harder, more restrictive and met with a greater degree of denied adoption due such institutions fearing for what might happen to the children adopted by such couples (SOLODNIKOV and CHKANIKOVA, 38 – 59).

Studies such as those by Solodnikov and Chkanikova (2010) refute this claim stating that based on data reviewing the sexual orientation of children of various gay couples over a period of several years it was seen that such children grew up to be relatively healthy heterosexuals with no negative behaviors (SOLODNIKOV and CHKANIKOVA, 38 – 59).

In fact other studies back up this claim and as such it can be seen that the assumption that gay parents will create gay children is definitely false. On the other hand it cannot be stated that there are no negative consequences for the children of gay couples.

A study by Joslin (2011) revealed that children of gay couples often have to deal with the social stigma of having gay parents due to the fact that it is still not a widely accepted norm for a child to have same sex parents. Negative consequences of such a stigma can range from being classified as being gay, insults, bullying, social isolation and other forms negative social consequences (Joslin, 81 – 101).

It was noted by Rogers and Fossey (2011) that while such problems are relatively minor early on due to a child’s innocence and the fact that the social stigma is not immediately apparent the fact remains that as the child grows older they become more aware of the difference in their familiar situation with that of other families and this, combined with the negative social consequences of having gay parents, at times results in childhood depression and the development of personality traits related to being a loner, becoming anti-social or other similar behavioral characteristics which distance a child from becoming sociable (Rogers and Fossey, 423).

Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Same Sex Marriages

One of the negative connotations attached to homosexual behavior as well as same sex marriages has been its connection to the supposed spread of sexually transmitted diseases among members of the gay population.

It is actually a commonly held belief that members of the gay community actually participate in various forms of deviant sexual behavior in which a single individual has multiple partners and practices bizarre sexual practices which as a result supposedly facilitates the spread of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV and AIDS.

While it may be true that same sex partners practice sexual activities that are outside the norm of what most people would consider “traditional” methods of sexual relations the fact remains that there has been no conclusive evidence which specifically indicates that STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) are more prevalent among the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transsexual) community as compared to the normal heterosexual population.

In fact studies such as those by Brody and Weiss (2011) clearly point out that the level of sexually transmitted disease between the two groups is actually the same and that the misconceptions regarding homosexuals having multiple sexual partners is no different than an ordinary heterosexual also having multiple sexual partners (Brody and Weiss, 298 – 300).

Furthermore it was noted by studies such as those by Grulich et al. (2009) that being a homosexual does not immediately make a person more vulnerable to catching STDs, in fact it was even noted that members of the gay community often practiced safer methods of sexual activity as compared to members of the heterosexual community (Grulich, et al, 1813 – 1817).

Thus, when taking into consideration the growing number of same sex marriages it cannot be immediately assumed that such activities will lead to the spread of STDs since it has been proven so far that the risk is just the same between straight and gay couples.

Religion

When examining arguments directly against same sex marriages it is often the case that religious dogma comes up as one of the main proponents against the continued practice of same sex marriages.

From Christianity to Islam same sex marriages are considered an affront to what many consider “the natural order of things” with religious texts specifically prohibiting the union of two people from the same sex. What must be understood is that from a social standpoint the arguments of various religions against same sex marriage do make sense since social stability hinges on maintaining social institutions of which heterosexual relationships are a cornerstone.

Furthermore, if one were to take into account the concept of what can be consider a “moral relationship” then from this standpoint same sex marriages can be considered immoral since they go against what many consider as a moral and responsible union of two individuals (Whitehead, 63 – 79).

In fact religious text specifically state that all unions must be between a man and a woman with those engaging in homosexual relationships often considered an aberration of set standards and as such deserve to be stoned or outright killed (Whitehead, 63 – 79). In fact when examining various aspect of Christian theology it is often seen that homosexual relationships are considered an affront to God and as such tolerance for homosexuality has always been a contentious issue in the Catholic Church.

While it may be true that Christianity espouses a doctrine of tolerance and love for one’s fellow man the fact remains that to this day it considers homosexuality as being perverse, immoral and nothing more than individuals giving into their baser desires (Whitehead, 63 – 79).

The result of the Church’s view on the subject of homosexuality has actually affected members of its own congregation resulting in various Christian communities often socially ostracizing or persecuting people who have been identified as being homosexual.

The reason why the Catholic Church and other religions have this particular stance is actually connected to institutional theory which specifically states that individuals tend to prefer to adhere to traditional institutions and ideas despite the presence of newer and more improved systems since it is in their belief that age equals stability.

In the case of religious beliefs it is the age of the doctrine which specifically condemns homosexuality that gives it a degree of credibility in the eyes of the Catholic Church and its followers and as such explains why to this day the stance of the church continues to be against same sex marriages.

Culture

From a cultural perspective, while same sex marriages are increasing in various areas within the U.S. as well as in several countries around the world the fact remains that though it is tolerated due to arguments presenting marriage as an inherent right, whether people are gay or straight, the fact remains that it is still not universally acceptable across all cultures.

For example, in the Middle East same sex marriages are expressly banned and the homosexual culture is thought of as bizarre, strange and an affront to God which results in it being ruthlessly suppressed (Dunne, 55).

In fact in a lot of cultures homosexual behavior is frowned upon and those who “come out of the closet” are times shunned by their family and friends. This is not to say that homosexuals are bad people, in fact some of them are actually quite nice, rather what must be understood is that their choice of lifestyle is considered by many to be abnormal and an intentional lifestyle choice.

When examining the homosexual culture it is often said that a person does not choose to be a homosexual rather they are born that way and thus, in their eyes, homosexuality is a perfectly normal behavior.

This is a rather interesting viewpoint to consider since homosexuality and heterosexuality are usually thought of as behaviors which develop as a result of both environmental and psychological influences (Jeffs, 66 – 71). As such becoming gay or straight is dependent on the way a person develops and is not based on a person being born gay.

Rather, based on social control theory which states that people often develop abnormal personality patterns based on a lack of social bonds which prevent such behaviors from manifesting it can be said that homosexuality is merely the result of abnormal development during an individuals development stage wherein a certain lack of social bonds whether in the form of father figures, mother figures, friends or other constraining factors are usually not present resulting in the development of tendencies related to abnormal behavior which manifests itself as homosexuality (Jeffs, 66 – 71).

Based on this it can be assumed that homosexuality is not a direct result of a person being born that way rather it is merely the manifestation of abnormal patterns of behavioral development during a person’s formative years of development.

Conclusion

Based on the presented data this paper concludes that not only does same sex marriage have the potential adversely impact the social growth of children due to the stigma of having gay parents but it must also be noted that due to effects of religious doctrine, negative social responses and the fact that the behavior itself is thought of as morally wrong this research paper disagrees with the concept of same sex marriage and it should be stopped in the mean time.

As this paper has shown the concept of same sex marriage is still thought of as being an affront to religious, social and natural laws and as such at the present it merely invites greater degrees of negative and even possibly violent responses.

While it may be true that from a human rights standpoint there is nothing wrong with it the fact remains that society still isn’t quite ready to openly accept it and thus it should not be implemented until such a time that homosexuality is either totally removed or universally accepted.

Works Cited

Andrew E. Grulich, et al. “Circumcision and Risk of Sexually Transmissible Infections in a Community-Based Cohort of HIV-Negative Homosexual Men in Sydney,

Australia.” Journal of Infectious Diseases 200.12 (2009): 1813-1819. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Brody, Stuart, and Petr Weiss. “Heterosexual Anal Intercourse: Increasing Prevalence, and Association with Sexual Dysfunction, Bisexual Behavior, and Venereal

Disease History.” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 37.4 (2011): 298-306.
Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Dunne, Bruce W. “Homosexuality in the Middle East: An agenda for historical..” Arab Studies Quarterly 12.3/4 (1990): 55. Literary Reference Center. EBSCO. Web.

Jeffs, William Patrick. “CHAPTER FOUR: THE TURN OF THE CENTURY: FREUD,

PSYCHOANALYSIS AND HOMOSEXUALITY.” Feminism, Manhood & Homosexuality: Intersections in Psychoanalysis & American Poetry. 66-71. Peter

Lang Publishing, Inc., 2003. Literary Reference Center. EBSCO. Web.

Joslin, Courtney G. “Searching for Harm: Same-Sex Marriage and the Well-Being of Children.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 46.1 (2011): 81-101.

International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center. EBSCO. Web.

Rogers, Kevin, and Richard Fossey. “SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULUM: CAN PARENTS OPT THEIR CHILDREN OUT OF CURRICULAR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND SAME- SEX MARRIAGE?.” Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal 2 (2011): 423. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web.

SOLODNIKOV, V. V., and A. M. CHKANIKOVA. “Children in Same-Sex Marriages.”

Russian Social Science Review 51.3 (2010): 38-59. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Whitehead, Andrew L. “Sacred Rites and Civil Rights: Religion’s Effect on Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Unions and the Perceived Cause of Homosexuality.” Social

Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited) 91.1 (2010): 63-79. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Introduction

Homosexuality or the gay culture has been a controversial topic of discussion in virtually every community in the world. Different people subscribe to various traditions rooted in religion or community customs that have varied views on gaysim. Religion condemns and does not all accommodate people who have sexual relation with people of the same gender (Wardle, 2003, p106).

Islam, Christianity and even the traditional religions in Africa or elsewhere in the world have perennially had consensus on homosexual relations. Though some Christian denominations in the UK have relaxed a bit and consecrated gay bishops as church leaders, conservatism still remains in the church as far as gaysim is concerned.

Even contemporary communities like that of the US where people have embraced liberal tendencies and freedom of people to do what they like is prevalent, homosexuality and same sex unions are frowned upon (Pinello, 2006, p 69). Religion plays an important role in such popular views but again, it shows how deeply rooted the notion that only heterosexual relationships are normal is.

According to the Lesbian and Gay Movement, Same sex marriages have become political pet subjects alongside other ethical issues like abortion (1989, p. 35). In Europe and the United States, it is one of the campaign perspectives that voters carefully consider before voting for a candidate to elective office.

Same sex marriages or unions elicit strong emotions and the perspectives through which it can be looked at are numerous (Staver, 2004, p 278). Personal opinion which shapes popular opinion is one of them. Homosexuality and the constitution is another one as is the rights of individuals to choose what suits then so long as no one is directly affected. Religion too forms one of the major platforms on which same sex marriages can be discussed.

Throughout history, attempts have been made to make it legal for same sex couples to be recognized by the law and live a normal life like that of heterosexual couples (David & Caroline, 2009, p. 96). The campaigns have gained momentum in the 21^st century and a number of countries have succumbed to the pressure to legalize or are seriously considering relaxing the stringent laws that bar same sex unions.

Perspectives on same sex marriages

Popular opinion on same sex marriage

Views about same sex marriages are closely linked to the question of if homosexuality is a choice or innate driven feeling (Wilcox & Rimmerman, 2007, p. 11). A majority of populations in virtually all countries of the world have an unfavorable view about same sex marriages. However many people are warming up to the idea that two people of the same gender can be married and can raise a family together.

According to Wilcox & Rimmerman, vies about same sex marriages have thawed same way the inferiority attitude towards black people changed over time. In the case of racism, it is a matter of choice for a white person to discriminate a black person for example (Alderson & Lahey, 2002, p. 55). There was absolutely no biological evidence supporting that. However, there is biological evidence nowadays supporting homosexual behavior in human beings; because of that, the public has started to accommodate the idea of same sex marriages.

Same sex marriages and the constitution

The constitution recognizes people’s universal and fundamental right to marry (Gerstmann, 2004 p. 3). Same sex marriage is a constitutional issue whose debate has not reached any logical conclusion. There is debate if same sex coupled should also enjoy the right to adopt children as heterosexual couples.

Whether they should be treated as minority groups same as those based on race, gender, ethnicity or national origin (Fuchs & Boele, 2003). Questions are also abounding if the gay activists are asking too much and if they are asking the government to endorse homosexuality (Bardes & Shelley, 2008, p 28).

Netherlands was the first country to legalize same sex marriages in April 2001. Many other countries have so far allowed quasi-marital same sex, like South Africa, Norway, Sweden and Iceland (Nocotera, 1993, p 75). In the United States, the constitutionality of same sex marriages as said earlier has created a confusion that has provided little direction. The issue is characterized by court rulings which partially advocate for same sex marriages while technically there is no law enacted to that effect (Brewer, 2008, p. 87).

For instance, in 1993, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that the ban on same sex marriages violated the equality that the same constitution sought to protect. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Vermont rule that same sex coupled were entitled to all the constitutional rights that heterosexual couples enjoyed if not marriage itself (Gerstmann, 2004, p. 5). Such court decisions add to the complexity and unclear direction surrounding the issue of same sex marriages.

Religion and same sex marriages

Christians, Muslims and all other religious people like any other people in the constitution have their own individual views about what the society should be. Many religious Americans believe that there is only one side of the debate about same sex marriage (Saucier & Cawman, 2004 as quoted in Wilcox & Rimmerman, 2007, p. 106).

For Christians who avidly follow bible teachings, it is immoral beyond words to condone gaysim leave alone same sex marriages. According to Wilcox and Rimmerman, the bible has not always been definitive on a numerous issues in the society.

However when it comes to gaysim the book minces no words. The Bibles is absolutely clear about the immorality posed by allowing same sex marriages. Both practicing and believing Christians can never accommodate the view that marriage between two people of the same gender is sanctioned by traditional beliefs (Wilcox & Rimmerman, 2007, p. 105). Gay activists have always countered that the right to be gay is a civil right as well as a religious right (Andryszewski, p. 10).

Conclusion

There are many more numerous views about same sex marriages in the United States and world over (Pinello, 2006, p 86). Homosexuals have a point when they argue that they have rights as individuals and couples under the constitution to do whatever they feel is right for them.

At the same time, constitution that protects these individuals is rooted in strong religious traditions that it will be hard to go against (Cahill, 2004, p. 209). Lack of political will has also derailed any progress that gay people could have made due to fear of political backlash.

Gay people have however managed to piece together different sections of legislations and court rulings in many countries and the US that help them live a near normal life. They can jointly own property, adopt children and live together without fear of attack (Stockland, 2007, p 47). For the time being, they have to contend with the reality that most people are against their instance that they be recognized under the law.

References

Alderson, K. & Lahey, A. K. (2002). Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political. London: Greewood Publishing Group

Andryszewski, T. (2008). Same-Sex Marriage: Moral Wrong Or Civil Right?. Minneapolis: Twenty-First Books.

Bardes, A.B., Shelley, C. M. & Schmidt, W. S. (2008). American Government & Politics Today. London: Cengage Learning.

Brewer, P. (2008).Value war: public opinion and the politics of gay rights. London: Rowman Littlefield.

Cahill, R. S., (2004). Same-sex marriage in the United States: focus on the facts. Oxford: Lexington Books

David, K. & Caroline, S. (2009). Choices in Relationships: An Introduction to Marriage and the Family. New York: Cengage Learning

Fuchs, A & Boele, W. (2003). Legal recognition of same-sex couples in Europe. New York: Intersentia nv.

Gerstmann, E. (2004) .Same-sex marriage and the Constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (1989) .Same-sex relationships: a Christian contribution for discussion. NY: LGCM.

Nocotera, M. A. (1993). Interpersonal communication in friend and mate relationships. New York: Suny Press.

Pinello, R. D. (2006). America’s struggle for same-sex marriage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Staver, D. M. (2004). Same-sex marriage: putting every household at risk. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group.

Stockland, M. P. (2007). Same-Sex Marriage. Chicago: ABDO A family Educational Publishers.

Wardle, D. L. (2003). Marriage and same-sex unions: a debate. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Wilcox, C. & Rimmerman, A. C. (2007). The politics of same-sex marriage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Over the past years, there have been debates on whether people of the same sex should be allowed to marry or even enter into a relationship. This has raised concerns on civil unions leading to formation of movements intended to protect them.

Although same sex couples have been given the choice of civil unions in some states, they should be completely permitted to marry since these unions are not actual marriage but are simply partnerships offering the privileges of traditional marriage (Matthews, 2006, p. 1).

Same sex couples should be allowed to marry because denying them would be depriving them of their religious rights. Although homosexuality is considered a sin by almost all religions, a person’s views on religion must be protected as a civil right according to the Amendments of the constitution. According to the state, marriage is a secular activity and therefore the government should not make laws based on religious belief.

There is more to marriage than just the legal status. The benefits of marriage such as decision making and joint ownership of property are important and should be available to all couples. Same sex couples should be allowed to make important medical decisions (Matthews, 2006, p. 1). For instance, if one partner gets critically ill, his/her spouse should be allowed to visit or even take important measures such as deciding whether surgery should be done.

Homosexuality has been linked to biological causes due to hormonal switch and not by choice. Most homosexuals have secondary sexual features that are similar those of the opposite sex. For example, a male may have a softer voice and this will attract him to fellow men that have deeper voices.

Similarly, a female with a masculine body will be attracted to females that have feminine bodies. Most homosexuals do not choose to live that life but nature does as a result of hormonal switches and therefore should not be discriminated but rather allowed to exercise human rights as any other person would.

Denying same sex marriage would be discriminating the minority which would defy the America’s concept of rule by the majority and protection of the minority rights. The Bill of Rights and equal protection amendments are meant to ensure that all citizens exercise equal rights. A marriage is a commitment between two people and it does not hurt the society and therefore the society should not dictate other peoples’ lives that do not affect them.

The church and other religious groups have the right to only criticize but do not have the power to prevent any marriage. More so homosexuals marry not for status but for the love they have for one another which should be the ultimate reason for marriage and as long as they love each other and they want to live together forever, there should be no hindrance (Jackson, 2010, p. 1).

Like any other normal marriage, a same sex marriage may lead to the desire by the couple to have a complete family. Since homosexuals cannot pro-create naturally, their desire to have children would drive them to adopt. The number of street children and others who are in need would decrease and children would benefit by having a family too.

Although many may think the opposite, homosexuality promotes family values since same sex partners do not engage in unprotected sex with different partners. This helps reduce problems related to sexuality such as STD’s. Married homosexuals like any other married couple, offer financial support to each other considering today’s economic situation.

Reference List

Jackson, Gregg. 2010. Same Sex “Marriage”: Illegal in All Fifty States. Web.

Michael, Mathews. 2006. Should Same Sex Marriage Be Legal? Web.

Introduction

Same sex marriages have been on the rise in the last four decades or so. Pro-same sex marriage lobbies have articulated that these need to be treated on par with conventional marriages. They believe that since most of the parameters that apply to heterosexual marriages, such as love, caring, commitment, fidelity, promiscuity and so on apply to these marriages as well. They see it as the exercise of natural choice, and refute the procreation aspect by claiming that they can have offspring, too. Testimony to this claim is the fact that no less than a quarter of the estimated 600,000 same sex couples in the US have adopted children. (D’Cruz, 387-8) They claim, with credibility, and backed up by facts, that when it comes to habitation, they go by the same set of conditions –they have the same commitment to their children as heterosexual people, live a life in which they cooperate with each other in all major aspects of life, pay taxes and contribute to society. Thus, according to this segment, there should not be nay moral exclusion by these people should be viewed as the mainstream of the society. However, they ignore the moral and religious grounds. In a country where currency notes contain the words, “In God We believe”, it is a blasphemy to encourage this segment of thought process and legalize it. (D’Cruz, 384).

Problem Statement

Gay couples are looking for legal recognition of their right to stay together as couples and they want it to be legally referred to as ‘marriage’, which is socially, culturally and religiously unacceptable.

The solution proposed to solve the problem

The same sex couples want a legal recognition called ‘civil union’ this should be provided.

Target audience

The target audience in this issue covers a wide range from an individual, committee, group and most of all legal authorities.

Action for readers to take

Once the readers are influenced by the argument it is assumed that they would move a social memorandum in favor of the argument and insist the authority to grant the gay couples the status of civil union and not marriage.

Alternative solution for readers

The readers may also take up the issue and organize a social referendum to stop the legalization of same sex marriage altogether. However, the readers may feel it would be lenient to allow staying together of gay couples without any legal status.

How have you handled these alternatives?

As per the argument, it is persuaded that human rights should not be ramified under any circumstances. Thus, allowance of civil union would suffice without any further allowance by the legal authorities.

Arguments

The total percentage of the gay and lesbian population is about 10% (D’Cruz, 380)of the population and their ways of life significantly ramify the normal ways, livelihood, religion and beliefs of the rest 90%. (D’Cruz, 380) Thus, it is recommended that the authorities should restrain from legalizing these minority populations in favor of the majority as it is expected of a democratic society. Measures should be taken to make the authorities understand the good of the greater mass. It should be noted that marriage should be defined in constitution to be between a man and a woman but gay couples or those who chose this lifestyle should be awarded the same benefits as heterosexual couples and it should not be called marriage but maybe civil union since that is what these same sex couples want. This is the only possible way to help solve this same sex marriage issue without hurting the social and religious sentiments.

In the simplest terms, same sex marriage, as the term indicates, is the marriage between individuals of the same sex. There is disagreement over whether this term is analogous to gay marriage, since some people can be homosexual, and could still be in a heterosexual marriage. Those who oppose the usage of the term ‘gay marriage’ do so because they would like the genealogy to include what are called ‘LGBT’, or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships.

By whatever names they were called, unions between people of the same sex have existed since ancient times in almost all parts of the world; some prominent examples are those of Greece, in which an elderly man would cohabit with a younger male, in a manner strikingly similar to heterosexual practice. This often happened with the full consent of the family and the society. Acquiescing with an elderly man of considerable social standing was perhaps a way to climb the social or intellectual ladder. In ancient Rome, too, this practice is believed to have existed for centuries before the advent of Christianity. Once this religion was born, with its firm accent on marriage as a means for procreation, same sex relationships started to go underground, perhaps in view of the enormous influence the Church held over people’s daily lives. In the US, as late as the 19^th century, two women would cohabit and make commitments to each other, in what was known as Boston Marriage in a system. (D’Cruz, 382).

There is the argument that same sex marriages can never exist, since marriage is one that is a union between a male and female; hence, in this sense, the idea of same sex marriages is a kind of oxymoron, since same sex couples can never meet the most essential purpose of a marriage in the Judeo-Christian sense, procreation. Courts have traditionally held the view that marriage is untenable if it does not lead to procreation; seen in this sense, supporters of same sex marriages argue that even old people and sterile heterosexuals should be denied marriage. This argument, though, is defeated by the allusion to the point that with the advancement of science, it is possible for same sex couples also to have children. (Alderson, 1)

The argument that children of same sex parents suffer ostracism and become objects of ridicule in society is countered by the fact that once these couples of civil unions separate, due legal protection is offered to the children. This protection is far superior to and more solid than what is offered to children of heterosexual parents, who are not obliged to provide financial support for their children. (Bolte, 1)

Same sex marriage is contrary to nature’s creation; they term homosexuality the height of deviant behavior comparable to some of the most heinous acts, and equate its very existence to promiscuity and sexual depravity. Another extremely important factor these opponents of same sex marriages put forward is that one of the prime functions of marriage is biological; when same sex marriages render this impossible, how can this be considered as any kind of marriage? (Wardle, Strasser, Duncan, and Coolidge 97-100).

Another argument put forward in opposition to same sex marriages is legalizing it runs contradictory to established law –while on the one hand, the government bans some sexual practices such as sodomy, legalization of same sex marriages would negate that, as this practice is accepted as common practice in same sex marriages, especially between two men. (D’Cruz, 388).

Also, the gay lifestyle should not be encouraged because a lot of research shows it leads to lower life expectancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Studies done by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, in the 1980’s showed that male homosexuals had an average life expectancy of less than 50 years – more than 20 years less than the overall male population (NCBI, 1). However, another study in 1997, done by NCBI in Canada found that male homosexuals have a life expectancy of 20 years less than the general male population (based upon a prevalence of 3% of the male population). This shows that the gay lifestyle is not just another lifestyle like smoking or drinking but a lifestyle that can bring harm to society if allowed. The conclusion for this study example is that, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men and if the same pattern of mortality is continued, its estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday (NCBI, 1).

Additionally, because it’s a dangerous lifestyle the US FDA’s definitions of blood donation does not allow the Red Cross and other agencies to accept blood from homosexuals. According to the standard questionnaire, “men who have had sex with another man even one time since 1977“(CBER, 1) are disqualified from donating blood because of risk of AIDS to the blood supply. Obviously, the risk of HIV infection is greater in those who practice homosexuality in the United State compared to heterosexuals who do not practice safe sex.

In addition, gay marriage offends all major religious institutions in America. Most religious institutions consider gay marriage to be a sinful act and recognize the religious sanctity of a marriage union. It is therefore important for homosexuals to recognize the religious sanctity of a union. The National Association of Evangelicals also considers the practice of “homosexuality as a sin and if permitted will bring grave consequences in life” (NAE, 1). Many religious institutions believe that allowing same sex couples to share a common alter with heterosexual couples, is a blatant corruption of society. For example the Islamic Shura Council, an umbrella organization for mosques and Muslim groups in Southern California, denounced the ruling allowing gay marriage and said “Homosexuality is considered a violation of Islamic law”(ISC, 1).

Marriage is the sacred union of a man and woman. It has been the mechanism that has allowed society to sustain generations with new offspring. Even with today’s tolerant religions, same sex marriage is still an unacceptable practice. Society is so passionate about preserving the sacredness of marriage that it is one of the issues of national importance. Because gays are a minority of society, their will to marry cannot interfere with the beliefs of the majority of Americans. In 2004 during the elections, the electorate clearly voted against gay marriage. According to The Washington Post, the exited poll in 2004 showed, “22% of the electorate said “moral values” was the issue that mattered most in how they voted – compared to 20% who cited the economy”(TWP, 1). Legalizing gay marriage is believed by many to weaken the foundation of marriage, encourage high-risk sexual lifestyles and end procreation. Gay marriages should not be legalized because of religious, political and medical reasons.

Conclusion

In view of the developments taking place over the decades, and in view of the openness being generally witnessed in the West to same sex marriages, there is likelihood that the day is not very far off when these marriages would be legalized. Another strong reason to believe that its legalization would happen sooner or later is that the West has a tradition of liberalism; the tradition that was the product of the Revolutions has touched virtually every aspect of life, and there is no reason to believe that only same sex marriages would be exempt from this sweep. In fact, it is a possibility all the more plausible considering that rights have been obtained, some easily and some after a struggle. It is rather anomalous that the US, which champions itself as the protector of rights and freedoms of all clans and cultures should still find it necessary to keep in place laws that are anachronistic to its liberalism-steeped attitude and philosophy. (D’Cruz, 384).

There should be complete citizen’s rights to these people and should be legally allowed to live as couples. Nevertheless, this would be strictly immoral. The sentiments of the mass should be taken into consideration and should be valued by the authorities. Thus, the only way possible is to strictly define the definition of marriage as per constitution. The institution of marriage should be well defined as a union between a man and a woman and not between members of the same sex. As for the gay couples, the institution should be referred to as civil union and not ‘marriage’ under any circumstances. The same sex couples want a legal recognition and this term, ‘civil union’ should well suffice. On the other hand, the sacred institution of marriage would be unaffected and the sentiments of the religious and social norms would be protected.

Works Cited

D’Cruz, Shani; Family and Sexuality the American Way; Gender & History; 13: 2; 380-388; Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Manchester Metropolitan University, UK; 2001

Alderson, Kevin G. “A Phenomenological Investigation of Same-Sex Marriage.” The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 13.2 (2004): 107+. Questia. Web.

Bolte, Angela. “Do Wedding Dresses Come in Lavender? the Prospects and Implications of Same-Sex Marriage.” Social Theory and Practice 24.1 (1998): 111+. Questia. Web.

Wardle, Lynn D., Mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge, eds. Marriage and Same-Sex Unions : A Debate /. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. Questia. Web.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2008. Web.

Deem, Rich. “It’s Just Another Lifestyle: What Health Risks?” 2008. Web.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Home page. Department of Health and Human Services. 2007. Web.

Ibanga, Imaeyen. “Transgender Man Says He’s Pregnant.” ABC News. 2008. Web.

“U.S. Bishops Urge Constitutional Amendment To Protect Marriage.” American Catholic.org. 2003. Web.

Abu, Laylah.” Gay Marriage: Islamic View”. Islamonline.net. 2004. Web.

Hogg, RS. “Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual Men”. British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. St Paul’s Hospital. Vancouver, Canada. Web.

Introduction

The concept of same-sex marriage is considered to be a union that is recognized by the state in both a social and legal context wherein the marriage of two individuals of the same sex is considered to be legally and socially binding. It must be noted though that its inception and implementation within a few U.S. states and countries have only been established within the past decade and a half.

In fact, the very concept itself is widely considered to be the result of the gay rights movement that gained popularity in the U.S. during the early 1960s which subsequently spread to a worldwide gay community as a direct result of its popularity and the freedoms it entailed.

What must be understood though is that while the concept of same-sex marriage exists it is not widely accepted within the general population; in fact, it is often considered to be a social aberration which has actually resulted in delays in its widespread acceptance and institution as a standard practice (Sherkat et al., 2010).

An examination of the underlying factors behind this apparent resistance to the implementation of same-sex marriage as a standard social institution reveals that religious and social precedent play distinct roles in promoting the idea that allowing same-sex marriage is an aberration towards what is normal (Ellison et al. 2011). It must be noted though that such arguments are based on historical precedent rather than factual evidence indicating that same-sex marriage is actually bad for society.

Further examination of the issue reveals that there are actually no adverse effects beyond that of social aesthetics in implementing same-sex marriages. Society is already well aware and has somewhat accepted the fact that same-sex relationships do, in fact, exist. Extending such relationships towards a legalized union does no apparent harm to society and thus can be considered an inherent right of an individual.

It is on this basis of inherent rights that various countries and states in the U.S. have begun to adopt new forms of legislation that actually allow same-sex civil unions (marriages) since it is argued that people have an inherent right to choose who they want to marry with religious and social institutions having no right to interfere with a person’s inherent freedoms.

What must be understood is that the basis for the creation of recent legislation allowing same-sex unions is not one where the unions are inherently approved of based on the predilections of the individual actors or groups that brought about the legislation in the first place but rather are a direct result of responding to the request of a community within a nation who are advocating their right to a civil union bases on their inherent human rights which the state has the responsibility to uphold.

Religious and Social Views on Same-Sex Marriage

The basis for this apparent social abhorrence behind the act is actually the result of two distinct factors, namely: religion and the adherence to traditional partnerships within society.

Religion, particularly Christian and Muslim groups, are thoroughly against the concept of same-sex marriage and due to their population majority within society with both groups numbering in the 2 billion to 3 billion range this means that a large percentage of community already has developed the preconceived notion that same-sex marriages are a travesty and are against the natural order.

It must be noted though that while a majority of Middle Eastern countries are thoroughly against the concept of same-sex marriages a large percentage of countries, of whom most of the population is inclined towards Christianity, are actually more tolerant of the concept of lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and transsexuals (LGBT) (Ellison et al. 2011).

This tolerance though, should not be considered as thorough acceptance since LGBT groups within such countries still experience various forms of harassment and discrimination. An examination of the different arguments presented by religious groups against the act of same-sex marriages usually coincides with various references towards religious texts which specifically state that same-sex marriages are not allowed within their respective religions (Healy, 2011).

The attitude of religious groups has extended towards presenting the message that LGBTs are an aberration to the natural order of the world and as such claim that these individuals will not go to heaven and are destined for hell (Healy, 2011). While such messages are highly inappropriate, they are actually keeping with the rather conservative nature of religious groups who are usually at odds with liberal ideas of which same-sex marriages are extensions of.

Another factor that has caused delays towards the adoption of same-sex marriages as a standard practice is the traditional idea of man-woman partnerships within society. As noted by institutional theory, people are more likely to adhere to traditional financial, economic, government or social institutions despite their inefficiency and the presence of better alternatives due to the fact that they have been around for such a long period of time.

This longevity is thus equated towards stability which most people consider vital in everyday existence. When applying this particular concept towards the establishment of same-sex marriages as a new social institution it becomes obvious that people would initially be against it and would not immediately accept it due to the fact that it is relatively new and that they prefer to stick to traditional social institutions as their basis for defining what is and what is not acceptable within society (Sherkat et al., 2010).

Government Legislation and Same-Sex Marriages

As such it can be seen that religion and traditional societal concepts are one of the inherent problems behind widespread acceptance of the practice of same-sex marriage however what must be understood is that while religions and established social norms are inherent parts of society they are categorized under influential aspects of society rather than binding legal institutions (Messerli, 2011).

Religions and societal norms cannot enact legislation in government, they can be thought of as methods to influence the creation of legislation but in the end individual actors or groups within the government are the primary creators of all legislation and as such it is only them that can determine whether the act of same-sex marriage can be considered legal or not.

This is one of the reasons why same-sex marriages are increasingly being allowed in various U.S. states and countries since most legislators and individual actors who help enact legislation take into consideration factors such as inherent individual and human rights when they legalize certain practices and cannot allow themselves to be influenced by social and religious advocacy since when creating effective legislation what is needed is not a person’s religious or social orientation but rather a consideration of the moral and ethical standards behind the creation of the new law or piece of legislation.

On the other hand this also explains why same-sex marriages are not allowed within various Middle Eastern countries since religion and the creation of government laws and pieces of legislation often overlap with the concept of “Shariah law” often taking precedent resulting in individuals being unduly influenced by the necessity of making sure new laws and enacted legislation often stays true to religious concepts and opinions.

Legal Rights and Non-Discrimination

When examining arguments in support of same-sex marriage terms such as “inherent human rights” and “non-discrimination” are often used as methods of justification for same-sex marriages. It is argued that people have an inherent human right to freely marry who they choose to and as such the state should support such unions. This particular argument is based on the freedom of choice, which is cited in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which most states ascribe to (Barry, 2011).

What must be understood is that states have the inherent responsibility to uphold the basic human rights of its citizens. While some states such as China, the Middle East and several countries within Africa do limit certain human rights in favor of national security the fact remains that states that are set in a more democratic orientation (such as the U.S.) do often take into account the individual rights if its citizens in shaping new pieces of legislation (Glass et al., 2011).

Since the right to choose is a basic human right, it is used as method of justifying same-sex marriages since people are entitled to choose who they wish to marry (Glass et al., 2011). What must be understood is that before any legislation is passed that condones a particular action sufficient impetus must be proven to show that such actions are beneficial towards society, the state and are methods of upholding individual rights.

In the case of same-sex marriages this took the form of establishing the fact that a sufficiently large LGBT community is in place within a particular country/state and that same-sex relationships do occur on a regular basis so as to justify the creation of legislation that allows civil unions between same-sex couples.

When examining the justification behind the creation of legislation allowing same-sex civil unions it is often the case that such pieces of legislation are created since it is necessary for the government to uphold individual and community rights, in this particular case it is the inherent human right of same-sex couples to get married (Barry, 2011).

Another factor that should be taken into consideration (which is often expressed by the LGBT community) is their right not to be discriminated against by the government.

The 1960 gay rights movement that occurred as a direct result of the influences of the 1960 Civil Rights movement resulted in the passing of various forms of legislation that made discrimination on the basis of gender illegal within the United States. This particular piece of legislation is often utilized as a basis for the creation of legislation within states to allow same-sex marriage since to limit marriage to people of opposite genders is taken as a form of discrimination under the law.

While it may be true that individual states have the prerogative to subjectively interpret the law based on their inherent predilections that fact remains that it has been noticeable that states are often siding against religious and social groups and are in effect interpreting the law to allow same-sex civil unions.

Conclusion

What must be understood is that from a legislative standpoint, same-sex marriages should be allowed by the law since states need to uphold the individual rights of their citizens. Same-sex marriage is thus continuing to be interpreted under the basis of an inherent right and as such is one of the reasons why individual states within the U.S. as well as other countries are beginning to allow same-sex civil unions.

While it may be true that religious and social institutions vilify the practice the fact remains that the right to choose who to marry is an inherent human right that states need to uphold. As such, the creation of legislation allowing same-sex marriages can be considered an evolution in the way in which the terminology of the institution of marriage is formulated so as to take into consideration the inherent human right of individuals who wish to marry despite being of the same gender.

Reference List

Barry, P. (2011). Same-Sex Marriage and the Charge of Illiberality. Social Theory & Practice, 37(2), 333-357. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Ellison, C. G., Acevedo, G. A., & Ramos-Wada, A. I. (2011). Religion and Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage Among U.S. Latinos. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 92(1), 35-56.

Glass, C. M., Kubasek, N., & Kiester, E. (2011). Toward A ‘European Model’ of Same – Sex Marriage Rights: A Viable Pathway for the U.S.?. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 29(1), 132-174. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Healy, M. (2011). St. Paul, Ephesians 5 and same-sex marriage. Homiletic & Pastoral Review, 111(8), 12. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Messerli, J. (2011). Should same-sex marriages be legalized? . Web.

Sherkat, D. E., de Vries, K., & Creek, S. (2010). Race, Religion, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 91(1), 80-98.

Same sex marriage in California has taken a different route as compared to the other states in America. With effect from June 2008, the state allowed and licensed same sex marriages, being the second state to take that step. The rationale behind this as indicated by a ruling made by the Supreme Court was founded on the need for protection and respect to decisions made by the citizens, in this case those who practice homosexuality.

This ban was however declared unconstitutional by the federal court in 2010, a decision that was granted full support by the United States court of appeal in 2012 (University of California, 2010). From this therefore, same sex marriages in California are being governed from three perspectives which are the law, Prop8 and the Supreme Court.

The perspective of the law, according to the federal court in California, indicates that the ban on same sex marriages is unlawful and against the constitution since it violates the human rights dignity of a section of the society. The Californian parliament voted in support of same sex marriages, making it the first state to take such an action.

This was however met with great controversy especially from the religious communities, most of which claimed that this was a defilement to the sanctity of marriage. They alleged that these kinds of marriages created an environment that is not fit for the healthy development of children. This controversy is what led to the development of Proposition 8, an amendment that was taken to the polls in 2008 (Head, 2009).

Proposition 8, which is motion supporting a ban on same sex marriage, was passed in 2008 by way of vote, since the proposition to ban same sex marriage got more than 50 percent of the votes. This was however opposed by the court indicating that it denied the rights of the minority for no reason.

They indicated that the law proposing the ban on same sex marriage had no legal ground but was only aimed at denying the gay couples the rights associated with legal and registered marriages (National Conference of State Legislature, 2008). The argument of the judge who supported this ban was that the society needed children to be raised in heterosexual families for healthy growth.

Five months before passing prop 8, same sex marriages had been legalized by the Supreme Court and this led to the bending of some laws which previously limited the definition of marriage to the union between man and woman (National conference of state legislatures, 2008).

Prop 8 was the first constitutional amendment of its kind and this explains why it was subject to a lot of controversy. This was opposed by the gay community who alleged that it required an approval of 2/3 of the legislative votes before being brought out in the public for the polls, a condition that was not adhered to.

The Supreme Court of California maintains that the ban on same sex marriages is unethical since every person is at liberty to make their own decisions as long as they do not interfere with other people’s freedom, a ruling made in 2012.

This court denounced the prop 8 ban, comparing this ban to racial or gender discriminations, which were highly condemned. It stated that this ruling failed to provide a reasonable ground for the denial of these so called human rights. (University of California, 2010). Still in the opposition of the ban, the Supreme Court went ahead to claim same sex marriages did not in any way affect the upbringing of children.

Still in this regard the judges of the Supreme Court required that federal state of California to revise rules related to the ban of same sex marriages. In this regard, the California university law publication article Sexuality & gender law:

Assessing the field, envisioning the future: symposium (2010) indicates that a family does not necessarily constitute woman and man, but any two people with a mutual consent to live together as husband and wife.

From this ruling it is clear that the Supreme Court supports same sex marriages and requires that any law that stands in the way of this should be repealed so that to give them privileges similar to those of their heterosexual counterparts (Leff, 2012).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the position of same sex marriages in California seems to be a great controversy to date. The gay citizens are few but with the backup they get from the legal body, they stand a chance to win in the debate. In the 2-1 ruling, it would have been argued that the sitting judge at that time was supporting his own interest owing to his sexual nature.

This allegation was however proved wrong when the judge who succeeded him maintained the same position (CNN US, 2008). They simply believe it is against human rights to ban same sex marriages. Therefore Prop8 appears to be losing its stand since it is discredited for lack of sufficient basis for the claims.

References

CNN US. (2008). California ban on same sex marriage struck down, Sexual orientation. Web.

Head, T. (2009). Reason to support Gay marriage and oppose the Federal Marriage Amendments. Civil Liberties. Web.

Leff, L. (2012). Prop 8, California’s same-sex marriage Ban, Declared unconstitutional. Web.

National Conference of state legislatures. (2008). Defining marriage: Defense of marriage Acts and same Sex Marriage laws. Web.

University of California. (2010). Sexuality & gender law: Assessing the field, envisioning the future: symposium. Ucla Law Review, 57 (5), 1129-1544.

Introduction

Over the years, marriage has been thought to be a private affair between two partners who express love and commitment to each other. However, this has grown to be referred to as a public institution. Marriage originates from time immemorial where the Christians profess that God created man and woman and put them in the Garden of Eden to reproduce and take care of the garden.

Therefore, the marriage institution has existed for a long time now. However, different scholars have emerged with various definitions of the term marriage. The marriage bill in the United State has had various amendments as different leaders considered it a sensitive issue in the country. The issue of gay marriage has always been brought about by lawmakers in the country since the 1970s where they advocate for legalization of the same sex marriage.

This paper brings into light several amendments to the Marriage Act where it guarantees the constitutional right of all citizens in the country. The Defense of Marriage Act is abbreviated as DOMA was enacted on September 1996 by the United States Congress. This legislation was enacted under President Bill Clinton, and it recognizes the marriage institution. According to DOMA, marriage refers to a union between a man and a woman that is legal under law that give the right of each partner in the marriage.

However, the law does not acknowledge the existence of the same sex marriage, and this has brought about legal cases to the government by aggrieved parties. The act signed into law by President Clinton raised a lot of questions about the Marriage Act where different lawmakers failed to acknowledge homosexual marriages under the law. The failure to recognize same sex marriage brought a lot of legal action to the government by aggrieved parties (Perkins, 2).

Definition of key terms

Federal law refers to a state regulation of Acts that each citizen is supposed to follow without fail. The Federal bills are passed by the Congress and signed by the President before being gazetted into law.

The laws provide guidelines of how citizens should carry themselves under the legal framework of the given country. The law protects the citizen from arbitration or any breach of their right and freedom either by the state or any citizen (Cott, 73). Marriage can be defined as a legal union between two individuals who express love and commitment to each other.

The union is recognized under the country’s legal framework as a binding agreement where benefits to both individuals are paramount. Under a common law, marriage is a legal union between a man and woman who come together to express love, sacrifice and commitment to each other under the law. This union is guarded by a legal document signed by the couple in front of a witness. There are different kinds of marriage that exist. This includes the Christian marriage that permits only one man and woman to have a marriage union.

The other kinds of marriage include civil union, which is officiated by the Attorney General. Over the years, debate about legalizing the same sex marriage had challenges following what is seen as a breach of the public view on the moral standards and especially in the church and family setting. In the past, most churches could not ordain gay priests as they were considered to have gone against the Biblical teachings.

Criteria for value judgement

Under the DOMA agreement enacted on September 1996, no state or even political subdivision can recognize same sex marriage for federal reasons including benefits to government employees or even social security for survivors’ benefits (Perkins, 2). Under the Clinton government, the law was put in the letter, and this raised a lot of questions and cases castigated towards the government.

As the government tried to criminalize homosexuality in the country, the homosexuality conduct law brought a case of Lawrence and Texas in 2003. The case was a follow up of the country in a move to overturn any same sex marriage where the parties to the marriage had no right under the law to conduct such an act.

The case was decided that brought power to the gay rights community in the state of Texas. The sodomy laws had criminalized many gay and lesbian couples before the Lawrence v Texas case in June 2003, which overturned the implications that the same sex marriage couple suffered under the sodomy laws. Before this case was brought out into the public domain, the homosexuals had been criminalized for their acts.

The same sex marriage law had extended to the military where the soldiers were not supposed to indulge in these acts. The law also sought to remove the children from their lesbian mothers’ home as a justification of these harsh laws against gay marriage. The Texas case impacted on the Marriage Bill in that the exclusion of gays from the military was now seen as a breach of their right to join the army and serve in the country’s military as they deemed fit (Duncan, 623-663).

Application of the criteria

In declaring the sodomy law unconstitutional in the country, the court that ruled the Lawrence v Texas case the court sought clarification of the Georgia sodomy statute that banned the same sex marriage in the country (Chauncey, 509-538).

Sodomy laws were thought to be the ideological, but they never considered the rights of the rising outcry by the gay community that sought the court orders to deem their marriage fit under the law. The anti-gay legislations that were eminent before had to be criticized to enable the observation of the rights of the different people who wanted to indulge in same sex marriages and relationships.

Following the election of President Obama into power, the Congress was mandated to look into the matter regarding same sex marriage and whether to legalize the union of the same sex partners. The DOMA act that was signed by President Clinton had to be investigated to allow for more public opinion about the same sex marriage in the country. The Massachusetts court granted several follow up with the same sex marriage bills seeking to allow for civil union of the same sex couple in the country.

The Supreme Court held meetings to discuss the implication of legalizing the same sex marriage, and various issues were raised that necessitated the need to legalize the bill into law. By the year 2009, most states had legalized the same sex marriage and started to issue certificates to the couples. States like California legalized the same sex marriage, and it was seen as a win for the gay community as their constitutional rights were finally recognized and considered (Condit and Lucaites, 56).

Conclusion

The anti same sex marriage laws has over the years seen as abusing the constitutional right of many citizens in the United States. The law criminalizes against gay and lesbian marriages. However, the trend seems to be changing with many people coming out to declare their sexuality. This has led to the public outcry to amend some of these laws. The sodomy law in the State of Texas was criminalizing gay couples and made it difficult for the gay community to serve in the military.

Works Cited

Chauncey, George. “What Gay Studies Taught the Court: The Historians’ Amicus Brief in Lawrence v. Texas.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 10.3 (2004): 509-538. Print.

Condit, Celeste and John Louis Lucaites. Crafting Equality: America’s Anglo-African Word. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Print.

Cott, Nancy. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University, Press, 2000. Print.

Duncan, William. “The Litigation to Redefine Marriage: Equality and Social Meaning.” BYU, Journal of Public Law, 18 (2004): 623-663. Print.

Perkins, James. Defense of Marriage: Does It Need Defending? New York: Novinka Books, 2004. Print.