Concept Of Same Sex Marriage example essay topic

Israel Jimenez Professor Byron Political Science 10221 February 2005 The Marriage Ordeal: Rights and Ramifications In a country with it's fundamentals based on liberty and equality, America has always struggled with those very concepts. Throughout history, Americans have been challenged to make decisions that have oppressed and freed certain groups of people. The political fight for same-sex marriages is a perfect example of this notion. This relation between spouses has created a major controversy that is creating history in our nation. A series of protests, acts and political scandal has finally opened America to discuss a topic that had been in "the closet" for a long time. This discussion asks questions that have caused a visceral reaction in society.

Questions such as whether gays and lesbians should marry, and if so, should they be granted the same matrimony rights as heterosexual couples? Should marriage be protected to fit traditional American values? How would these unions affect or contribute to our definition of such a celebrated institution? Tradition is a strong component in the institution of marriage.

The ideal American dream usually involves the perfect fairy-tale wedding with the gorgeous white wedding dress for the bride, the matching bridesmaids, the well-arranged bouquet and the numerous rituals that compose this well thought-out event. Usually it requires a great amount of planning, devotion and dollars to make the important day memorable. Family and friends come together to rejoice in the vows that will bond the two lovers into a lifetime journey of love, commitment and fidelity. Each person in the couple is expected to have a role in this institution.

According to Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, "in the idealized form of the older model of traditional marriage, the man's primary job for self-definition is to provide for the economic well-being, protection, and stability of his family... The woman's job and self-definition", on the other hand, continue Wallerstein and Blakeslee, "is to care for her husband and children and to create a comfortable home that nourishes everyone, particularly her husband, who comes home each evening drained by the demands of his job (211)". With a constantly changing society, the concept of marriage has also varied. The "quickie" Vegas drive-through wedding or the underwater vow exchange is not as unusual or shocking as it once was. Even the roles of the persons involved have changed to fit the shape of society's needs.

For example the modern "companionate marriage" which is "founded on the couple's shared beliefs that men and women are equal partners in all spheres of life and that their roles, including those of marriage, are completely interchangeable (Wallerstein, Blakeslee 155)". With the concept being able to adapt our definition of "roles' and traditions to fit the needs of the ever-changing society in mind, is the concept of same-sex marriage really so far fetch? History tells us that same-sex unions are not as contemporary as some might assume. Ceremonies between same-sex couples were not uncommon, specially in pre modern Europe where these vows were practiced involving the union of soul mates. "The same sex union ceremony makes no mention -in any language- of tribal, clan or family loyalty or union: it is unmistakably a voluntary, emotional union of two persons -always two: never more- (Boswell 188)". What has changed since then?

Could this history be inaccurate? Since all we have is text to prove any of these historical events, creating a standard that fits what we believe is right or wrong is challenging. Boswell adds, "It is nearly impossible to formulate in a precise and generally acceptable way what is meant by 'marriage,' either by modern speakers or in ancient texts (9)". There are many recorded characters and stories about same-sex unions and couples in world history.

These include very controversial relationships found in the Bible itself. Many believe the relationship between Jonathan and David went far more than friendship. The second book of Samuel 9: 1 tells their story: "After Jonathan was killed, David lamented publicly, 'I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women'". Other unions in the Bible seem to have the same bonding, homosexual connotations, including those of Ruth and Naomi and even more controversial that of Jesus and his most beloved disciple, John. Aside from the Bible, there is also the history of Serge and Bacchus, two Christian roman soldiers of high standing in the late third / early fourth century who were united in their love for each other and later became martyrs due to their union.

This was before the year 1000 and before the intrusion of the p seu-Isidor ian decretal's in canonical collections in the eleventh century. A whole lot has changed since then and will continue to as long as we remain human. Today our conception of marriage differs from person to person, yet the struggle to fight for what we believe in remains the same. Same-sex marriage is at the center of one of the hottest debates of this year's legislative session. In less than thirty years, the gay and lesbian movement has become one of the largest civil rights movements in contemporary America.

The movement has formed legal rights organizations, including the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Human Rights Campaign. These efforts have drawn national attention and developed compromises such as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for gays in the military and extended fundamental civil rights such as in the Supreme Court's ruling of the Romer vs. Evans case to protect gay rights. But the fight for equality is not over, the Gay and Lesbian Times informs us that currently the "Family Code 300" exists, "which was established by the Legislature and defines marriage under California law as between a man and a woman (14)". With a changing government and presidents with different views of Civil Rights throughout time, it is difficult to speculate what decisions will be made. Proof of this is, Proposition 22, "which added a provision to the Family Code providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Proposition 22, also known as the 'California Defense of Marriage Act', was ratified by a majority of California voters on March 7, 2000 (GLT 14)".

On the other hand, efforts to legalize same-sex marriage continue today and these have proved efficient. Just recently the Kurt 5 hin. org website announced that on Sunday, February 6, 2005, the Supreme Court of the State of New York County ruled that "under the New York state constitution, the [same-sex couples] are entitled to treatment equal to that of opposite-sex couples with regard to the issuance of marriage licenses and access to civil marriage". This is what democracy in America is about; the constant battle for what society feels is needed at the time. In order to know what is needed, information on what the pros and cons of the debate is necessary. When it comes to the same-sex marriage topic, like any other controversial debate, poignant points are made on both sides.

Both groups voice out their opinions in a variety of ways as in the Campaign for Children and Families (CCF) rally held on February 19, 2005 in San Diego against same-sex marriage rights. The Gay and Lesbian Times reported that about 30 conservative anti gay supporters finished their 15-city "Keep Your Hands Off Marriage" tour while the San Diego chapter of Equality California / Marriage Equality California (EQCA / MECA) held a silent protest. Groups are fighting more than ever to have their voice heard and have laws changed, such as the "Assembly Bill 19 (AB 19), also known as the Religious Freedom and Civil Protection Act. AB 19 would amend Section 300 of the Family code to read, 'Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons' rather than between 'a man and a woman' (14)". Gay rights activist view the discrimination against same-sex couples as unconstitutional and therefore feel it shouldn't be up to society to make these decisions. Anthony White, the EQCA / MECA event coordinator, echoes this point, ."..

Civil Rights are not something that should ever be put up to the a vote of people; they are due all people fundamentally (GLT 14) ". Yet conservative groups beg to differ, including our very own president, George W. Bush who now calls for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. Last February The WhiteHouse. gov reported a speech where he expressed that "ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes welfare of children and the stability of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all". Why such a concern for preserving this old model of traditional marriage? Libby Davies, a member of Parliament in Canada analyzed this question on Equal Marriage. ca saying that "people are worried about losing their sense of tradition" and she feels that "it is not about something ending.

It is about something beginning. It is about extending the celebration of love and commitment into a civil institution of marriage". Both sides make strong points and as of now it is up to the people to make the decision. If liberty and equality are really the roots of America, we are certainly not being fair by denying same-sex marriages. But only time and endless efforts will determine what the shape of the future will look like.

Nevertheless it is an substantial topic that deserves a great deal of our attention. It involves significant issues such as equality for same-sex couples to own property by entire ties, file joint state income tax returns, obtain health insurance through a partner's coverage, or have the right to make important medical decisions for a partner in emergencies, among other rights. And the fight is not solely about legal benefits, but of the recognition that similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing. The right to marry the person who has the power to make then truly happy and full.

Bibliography

Baldman, Anthony Gay & Lesbian Times, Pro-family group rallies in San Diego against same-sex marriage rights, San Diego News, issue 896, 2005 Boswell, John, Same-Sex Unions in PreModern Europe.
New York: Villard Books, 1994 The White House President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage.
24 February 2005.
Equal Marriage for Same Sex Couples Rights, Dignity, Liberty, and Choice. 22 February 2005.
Ko 5 hin Gay Marriage Legal Under NY Constitution (News). 6 February 2005.
Wallerstein, Judith, and Blakeslee, Sandra, The Good Marriage. Boston - New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 19952 Samuel, The Holy Bible.
Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Bible Publishers, 1988.