Same Sex Marriage - Research Paper Example

Same Sex Marriage and Gay Rights Outline: A. Introduction: general overview. B. Development of views upon homosexual marriages C. Conclusion Foreword: This research paper discusses the evolution of views (both in the society and research publications) upon gay marriage as the way to ensure realization of basic human rights of homosexuals. Points to be discussed: What makes a marriage? Definition of marriage. Homosexual relationships in the course of history that possessed all features of an “ordinary” marriage (Sparta, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, China, Japan). The development of views upon homosexual marriages. Official recognition of gay marriages in the modern age. The current trends concerning the issue of same sex marriages. Homosexual marriages: pro and contra. What’s the point for gays and lesbians to get married? The benefits of marriage. The attitude of homosexuals towards marriage. Introduction Marriage, at large, is two people’s living together, this union being acknowledged on the part of society. Such factors as having children, loving each other, and even official recognition (for in some places, it is still possible to marry without registration) are not necessary. It is normally taken for granted by the majority of people that marriages are concluded between two people of different sex; however in the course of history there have been plenty of examples of unities of people of the same gender, and these unities had all features of an “ordinary” marriage. It is enough to remember Sparta, where the pupils were the lovers of their supervisors, and lived in their houses. In Ancient Greece, there existed homosexual relations that were even legalized by means of a legal procedure. It can easily be derived from the antique Roman and Greek literature that homosexuality was a common thing in these communities. The evidence of existing of homosexual relationships can also be found in Oriental (Chinese and Japanese) sources. In the XVII century Japan, homosexuality was a norm, and was regulated by certain standards, like, e.g., the older partner’s obligation to provide for social acknowledgement of the younger one. Development of views upon homosexual marriages Whereas earlier, gay and lesbian marriages were criticized and referred to as a product of the modern age, nowadays it has often been stated that homosexual marriages have always existed, even if they were not acknowledged by the society and the law, and the problem is how to find an optimal form for them in each particular society: Most efforts by major gay groups to address family and relationship issues have tried to expand the definition of family through piecemeal legislation and litigation, and through so-called domestic partnership laws that confer limited rights on gay couples but fall far short of marriage. (Graff & Rotello 1996) In the modern times, the first country to acknowledge homosexual marriages officially was Dania. At the beginning of the 1990th, there had been issued a corresponding law, and by the end of 1995, the number of officially registered gay and lesbian couples was as high as 3000. However, even in this country, there are still certain restrictions imposed onto homosexual families: they cannot adopt a child, or have a test-tube baby. All in all, in many world countries, homosexual marriages are now legalized; however neither of these countries has ensured equal rights for gay and lesbian couples as compared to heterosexual families. The tendencies in the modern society are twofold: some people admit that homosexuals should be given the right to get married, but do not really regard this issue as a problem; others are prejudiced against gays and lesbians, and therefore completely reject the very possibility of such marriages. If you ask several people at random what their opinion is about the rights of homosexuals, they are most likely to reply that there should be equality in everything – at the workplace, in the sphere of social servicing, jurisprudence, etc…. but as the matter comes to marriages, the majority of them will oppose it heatedly. There have been multiple attempts to find out the reasons for this opposition, and it probably roots in stereotypes existing in the society about absence of any faithfulness and stability in homosexual relations, and gays and lesbians’ being indiscriminate in establishing sexual ties. Though in some cases this is true, the same statement can be attributed to some heterosexuals. There is also a common belief that homosexuals are able to “change”, and become “naturals”; however this is not true. As for gays and lesbians, they normally value long-lasting relationships based on mutual support and affection. Moreover, homosexual marriages restrict any indiscriminate relations, and it is one of their advantages. Generally, the conclusion is that homophobia is still very powerful in the society. The discrepancy between people supporting gay rights “in general” but opposing legalization of homosexual marriages has been noticed by many researchers: Although most Americans are indeed opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage, large numbers of these same Americans do not consider homosexuality itself a sin, and they welcome greater tolerance for homosexuals. Favoring equality, they do not wish to see anyone denied his rights. It is the seeming ambiguity in this position that has been seized upon by activists to stigmatize any opposition to same-sex marriage as evidence of homophobia, or prejudice against homosexuals per se. But a hirer way of putting it would be to say that we have allowed a muddled understanding of democracy to subvert our capacity to speak on behalf of those human forms and traditions upon which democracy itself crucially depends. (Kurtz 2000) Still, it is different for each particular country. In Canada, for example, the overall public support for gays and lesbians having full rights (including the right to get married) is very significant – according to public opinion surveys, about 53% of Canadians want homosexuals to have legal spousal rights: Canadian gay and lesbian activists gave credit for public opinion support of gay and lesbian rights to the deliberate strategy of gay and lesbian organizations to take their case to the public one step at a time. When Canadians saw how vindictive and cruel the opposition was, they came to the aid of gays and lesbians because they did not want to be identified with the opposition. Whether crediting gay and lesbian strategy is deserved may be debatable. Nevertheless, the polling data indicates that public opinion in Canada supports full rights for gays and lesbians. (Mazur 2002) The modern authors writing about this issue often ask a question: what is the point for gays and lesbians to get married? Homosexual marriages are claimed to be unnecessary and lacking any sense, apart from certain material obligations between the partners, as well as benefits that married people get from the life in society. Some authors say that there should be restrictions for homosexual marriages, especially those that have been concluded with the aim to benefit somehow. What with emancipation of women who are quite able to provide for themselves and their children, marriage today is often regarded as something that ensures the rights of children, and since homosexuals do not have children, therefore, state some people, there is no need to allow them to get married. However, others proclaim the full equality of homo- and heterosexual marriages, and say that prohibiting gays and lesbians to marry is the violation of their human rights. After all, having children is not a necessity for many heterosexual couples either; moreover, the number of those who deliberately choose not to have children at all grows every year. The general tendency of tackling the issue of homosexual marriages nowadays is trying to prove that concluding such a marriage is a question of human rights and relations between an individual and the state. Financial Times cited the following viewpoint: marriage is not something the government should regulate, as it is a private affair of each member of the society. Such a liberal standpoint is quite common among people nowadays; apart from those who are deeply into religion that mainly still opposes homosexual marriages as sinful and evil. For instance, Report on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples in New York that was issued as a result of heated debate concerning the legislation permitting same-sex civil unions in Vermont, clearly proclaims banning same-sax marriages or non-recognizing them as anti-constitutional: The constitutionality of measures denying recognition of same-sex marriage is in doubt, especially in light of the United States Supreme Court's apparent shift in its consideration of gay and lesbian rights. Fifteen years ago, the Court found that a state sodomy statute enforced only against homosexuals violated no constitutionally protected rights. In contrast, in 1996, the Court found that by subjecting one group to a disadvantage that no other group had to suffer, a state constitutional amendment that barred anti-discrimination measures protecting lesbians and gay men violated the United States Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. In so doing, the Court took the remarkable step of invoking the landmark dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson in the opening paragraph of its decision: "[T]he Constitution 'neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens.' Unheeded then, those words now are understood to state a commitment to the law's neutrality where the rights of persons are at stake." The Court made clear that it would not countenance a legal distinction that raised the "inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected." (Report on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples in New York 2004, p. 70) However, it is hardly possible to completely eliminate the state from considering this problem, as it is the state that is actually granted the power to legalize any official relationships between people, and it provides certain categories of people with different sorts of exemptions and benefits, as well as ensures particular rights of the married partners, such as inheriting each other’s property, getting discounts, etc. So, legal marriage presupposes both partners’ having rights and duties, and that is what important for homosexuals when they claim their right to conclude marriages. Modern researchers pinpoint the fact that marriage, no matter whether it is of homo- or heterosexual character, ensures not only the rights of children, bur also the stability of partnership of two people, which is very important for the society. Family is a very important part of human life, and lonely people tend to be in a less economically stable position, and are more likely to become depressed, unhappy, and ill. Nobody can deny that emotional support is as important for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals, and the society will only benefit if they get this support from marrying another homosexual. Moreover, banning homosexual people from getting married and violating their rights results in their estrangement from the society, and sometimes even violent acts, and of course this is harmful and undesirable. Nowadays, many people compare the racist laws of the past prohibiting interracial marriages to discriminating homosexuals. Though, of course, homosexual marriages are of more complicated character than interracial ones, the state should not be allowed to discriminate its citizens in any aspect of social life. The publications that condemn homosexual marriages and exhort people not to support their legalization are mostly of religious character, however many of existing religions support such marriages. The majority of Western countries separating the State and the Church, and freedom of choosing a religion being one of the main human rights, this argument can hardly serve as a reason for governments to ban or not allow marriages between gay and lesbian couples. Many questions and discussions arise nowadays concerning the problem of having children in homosexual families. It is stated that children might be influenced by the sexual preferences of their foster-parents, and in case of a gay family adopting a boy, there are often suspicions that this boy is meant as a future sexual partner. However, as the research shows, children that have been brought up in homosexual families, do not differ from their peers whose parents or guardians are heterosexuals. Modern authors also pinpoint the fact that legalization of gay marriages is a question of civil rights. Gays and lesbians are not entitles to take decisions connected with health and life of their partners, they may be forced to testify upon their trial (which is not allowed when it comes to married couples), they often cannot inherit a partner’s property, etc. As P. Mazur and W. Swan have it: From the provision of anti-discrimination procedures to the granting of domestic partnerships, American government agencies increasingly need to deal on a practical level with the results of more equal treatment of sexual minorities. (Mazur & Swan 2002) As far as the history of fighting for gays’ right to marry is concerned, P. Mazur in his article Gay and Lesbian Rights in Canada: A Comparative Study gives a meticulous account of how homosexuals struggled for their spousal rights in this country. Though this struggle is not finished, of course, still the researcher claims that Canadian courts “have created the greatest progress in this area” (Mazur 2002), and it began from 1974 when two men appealed to the court with the aim to overturn the refusal to register their marriage, and eventually lost the case. In the 1970s, it also was a common practice to prohibit gay and lesbian couples adopt and bring up children. However, in the course of time, the tendency began to change: In 1981 the Ontario Court of Appeal found that "homosexuality is a neutral factor" in custody and access cases. In 1991 the British Columbia Supreme Court granted Timothy Knodel provincial medical benefits for his HIV positive same-sex partner. And in 1992 Graham Haig was successful in the Ontario Court of Appeal in having the Canadian Human Rights Act judicially amended to include same-sex couples in its protection, after having been denied promotions in the Canadian armed forces after coming out. The Federal government did not appeal this case. (Mazur 2002) P. Mazur considers the evolution of gay marriage issues in the USA as well, and writes that the first case pf public concern in this country was an event in Hawaii in 1992, when “three same sex couples filed suit claiming that the state of Hawaii's refusal to grant them a marriage license violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the state constitution”, and as a result the court came up with a decision to “simply define marriage as a union of opposite-sex couples” (Mazur 2002) Therefore, claims the researcher, Canada has advanced a lot more in acknowledging gay marriages than the USA have done. It should be noted as well that some of homosexual activists despise legalized marriages considering them the product of pan-heterosexual society that has always suppressed gays and lesbians. Those people who stick to this viewpoint reject all values of this society that seems hostile to them, including marriage and “traditional” family. As Graff & Rotello report: Many leading lesbian and gay activists still have basic misgivings about marriage itself. The gay movement retains a powerful antipathy to "heterosexist norms," especially the straitjacket of enforced gender roles and partnerships, in favor of a more fluid vision of personal and sexual freedom. Indeed, many gay and lesbian idealists don't want to join mainstream culture so much as have mainstream culture join them. (Graff & Rotello 1996) However, compared to homosexuals who struggle for acknowledging their spousal rights, people holding such opinion are in minority. Conclusion It is quite clear that the views of modern researchers on the problem of gay and lesbian marriages changed significantly as compared to the researchers of the past, and the tendency is to let people find their place in the society, and their way to be happy, no matter what sexual orientation they have. The arguments of those who oppose homosexual marriages are quite weak, and there is a lot fewer research and publications nowadays that are trying to highlight this side of the matter – the majority of them deal with the problem of how to facilitate acknowledgement of gay and lesbian marriages by the state and society. Positive sides of these marriages are often emphasized, and there is an appeal to people to get rid of false stereotypes and make the society more just and tolerant. Bibliography 1. Graff, E.J. & Rotello, Gabriel, “To Have and to Hold: The Case for Gay Marriage”, The Nation, 1996, 262 (25). 2. Kurtz, Stanley N, “What Is Wrong with Gay Marriage”, Commentary, 2000, 110 (2). 3. Mazur, Paul & Swan, Wallace, “Developing a Paradigm for Worldwide Gay, Lesbian Bisexual, and Transgender Public Policy and Administration”, International Journal of Public Administration, 2002, 25 (1). 4. Mazur, Paul, “Gay and Lesbian Rights in Canada: A Comparative Study”, International Journal of Public Administration, 2002, 25 (1). 5. “Report on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples in New York”, Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 2004, 13 (1). Published by: the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committeee on Lesbian and Gay Rights, Committee on Sex and Law and Committee on Civil Rights. Read More