Same Sex Couples With Rights And Benefits example essay topic

Introduction In America's current society, a great debate has surfaced about the Constitutions definition of 'marriage'. Does the definition exclusively include male and female relationships, or should it include any relationship of two consensual adults? The United States is a land of free choice and democracy, should changes in society's actions be welcomed in no matter what shape or form, or should certain historical values of human relationships go unchanged? This is a stern worldwide debate that has cause detention among societies in this land and abroad, causing debate from the Vatican City to the USA.

This paper is a group effort among freethinking individuals with the pure intent of explaining the story. It will cover the historical aspects, the controversy, the current standings, and future aspects of this great topic, but will not chose a side. Same-Sex Marriage: A History of the Law According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, a family is "the basic unit in society having as its nucleus two or more adults living together and cooperating in the care and rearing of their own or adopted children. Despite this definition lesbian and gay couples -- with or without children -- is not what is imaged when most people think of a family.

Although, lesbian and gay couples (and their children) consider themselves families. Over the past several decades, same-sex couples have been seeking social recognition for their families. It began in the 70's, when same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and asked the courts to allow one partner to adopt the other, and also took legal steps to legally cement their relationships -- most of these efforts failed. By the mid 80's, it changed to seeking "domestic partnership" recognition for same-sex couples from local and federal governments, and private companies. It continued, with increasing strength, into the 90's. Some couples were applying for marriage licenses and suing their states when they were denied.

In Vermont, one such lawsuit resulted in the creation of a state law that permits same-sex couples to register their partnership as a "civil union", which entitled them to all the rights and benefits granted to married couples. It's interesting to note that the lesbian and gay community is divided over the marriage issue. The community consists of many people of every conceivable walk of life and opinion. It is, of course, impossible to convince such a large, diverse group of people to throw their political weight behind any one issue. For example, some argue that regardless of any individual's desire to get married, the community as a whole should support official recognition of their rights to do so.

On the other hand, there are those who say marriage is a sexist, patriarchal institution that should be avoided at all costs. Still others enjoy a higher level of economic prosperity than the average American and don't feel restrained in any way by a lack of marriage rights. Another group doesn't want to risk the repercussions while perhaps another group just doesn't care at all about the issue. Lesbian and Gay Marriage In 1978, the United States Supreme Court declared marriage to be "of fundamental importance to all individuals" (Zablocki vs. Red hail).

The court described marriage as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man' " and "the most important relation in life". The court also noted that "the right to marry is part of the fundamental 'right to privacy' " in the U.S. Constitution. Some states have passed laws specifically barring same-sex marriages, and the number of states with such laws is increasing. Recently, the best news in the fight for recognition of same-sex unions came from Vermont, when the Vermont Supreme Court ordered its state legislature to come up with a system providing same-sex couples with traditional marriage benefits and protections. (Baker vs. State, 744 A. 2d 864 (Vt.

1999).) In response to the Supreme Court's mandate, the Vermont legislature passed the Vermont Civil Union law, which went into effect on July 1, 2000. While this law doesn't legalize same-sex marriages, it does provide gay and lesbian couples with many of the same advantages, including: use of family laws such as annulment, divorce, child support, alimony, domestic violence, adoption, and property division. the right to sue for wrongful death, loss of consortium and any other tort or law related to spousal relationships. medical rights such as hospital visitation, notification and durable power of attorney family leave benefits. joint state tax filing. property inheritance without a will. These rights apply only to couples living in Vermont, even for Vermont residents, this new civil union law does not provide same-sex couples with rights and benefits provided by federal law -- for example, same-sex couples cannot take advantage of Social Security benefits, immigration privileges and the marriage exemption to federal estate tax. It's too soon to tell what effect this law will have on the nation. The law allows couples that aren't Vermont residents to register their civil unions in Vermont, but it is doubtful that other states will recognize their status. (However, two other states, California and Hawaii, have already passed comprehensive domestic partnership laws offering benefits similar to those available in Vermont.) Although the U.S. Constitution requires each state to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of other states -- for example, by recognizing marriages and divorces made across state lines -- the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, expressly undercuts the full faith and credit requirement in the case of same-sex marriages.

Because of the apparent conflict between the DOMA and the Constitution. Attempts The following is a list of attempts made to challenge state laws: Baker vs. Nelson (Minnesota, 1971), Jones vs. Hallah an (Kentucky, 1973), Singer vs. Hara (Washington, 1974), Adams vs. Howerton (Colorado, 1975), T horton vs. Timers (Ohio, 1975), De Santo vs. Barnsley (Pennsylvania, 1984), Matter of Estate of Cooper (New York, 1990), Dean vs. District of Columbia (Washington, DC, 1995), Bahr vs. Miike (Hawaii 1999) Thus far little has been done to grant same-sex couples the right to legally marry one another, who knows what the future holds for them -- -only time will tell (history once it has been finally decided). Current Standings The current standings on same sex marriage range widely. Currently the Vatican is against such marriages and has even went as far as to launch a global campaign against gay marriages", "telling politicians who are members of the church that support of same-sex unions was "gravely immoral" and urging non-Catholics to join the offensive". Even our own President Bush has been quoted as saying", "We " re all sinners" and cautioned against condemning other people's behavior, he added, "that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is heading here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage".

President Bush has also been quoted as saying, "I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other". and President Bush has also told reporters that administration lawyers are now "looking at the best way to do that". There is even a constitutional amendment, known as the Federal Marriage Amendment, which 76 members of the House, including six Democrats, are co-sponsoring. "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman", the proposed amendment says. The Senate Republican Policy Committee has already examined the issue, issuing a detailed memorandum to GOP senators Tuesday. The memo noted that gay rights activists are expecting the imminent Massachusetts decision to make marriage legal for same-sex couples in that state.

Then, the memo predicted, litigation will move ahead in other states to strike down their laws limiting marriage to heterosexuals. On the other hand currently: In North America: Same-sex couples, from any country, can be married in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia or Ontario. The Canadian situation is in a state of flux. Sometime in 2004, they expect that couples can be married in any province in Canada. The states of California, Hawaii, and Vermont in the United States and the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in Canada allow gays and lesbians to apply for registered partnerships or civil unions. This gives them some of the rights and obligations that are automatically enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

For example, Vermont "civil unionized" couples pick up almost 500 rights and privileges -- all the state has to offer -- but are denied over 1,000 federal rights and privileges. Some cities have allowed the registration of same-sex relationships (while in most cases the states do not recognize these registrations) these include: Ann Arbor, MI Atlanta GA, Berkeley, CA, Cambridge, MA, Hartford, CT, Ithaca, NY, Madison, WI, Minneapolis, MN, Sacramento, CA, San Francisco, CA, West Hollywood, CA, Ashland, OR. Typically, these registries will record same-sex partnerships where both spouses are over the age of 18. Some couples receive a certificate indicating their status. Registries have no force in law and do not grant significant rights, privileges or responsibilities to the couple.

In Europe: Same-sex couples in the Netherlands and Belgium can marry. These countries do not differentiate between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, except that there are restrictions on same-sex couples where one spouse is from another country. A few European countries -- Denmark, France, Iceland, Norway and Sweden -- offer similar legal status to civil unions. Many cities in France and Spain have systems for gay and lesbian couples can register. However, they grant few, if any, rights.

Currently there are 3,400 private and public employers in the U.S. that provide domestic-partner benefits for lesbian / gay employees. These companies include Daimler-Chrysler Corp., Ford Motor Co., and General Motors Corp., Coca-Cola Company, American Express, American Airlines, Amoco, Avon, Barnes & Noble, Chevron Oil, Clorox, Coors Brewing, Disney, Eastman Kodak, Gap, General Mills, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Levi Strauss, Mattel, Microsoft, Nike, Ny nex, Pacific Telesis, Pillsbury, Proctor and Gamble, Quark, Reebok, Shell, Star Bucks Coffee, Sun Microsystems, Time Warner, United Airlines, US Airways, US West, and Xerox. References used for Current Standings: - Indexed on Aug 1, 2003 Human Rights Watch have a web site at: "Coca-Cola extends benefits to homosexual partners", Baptist Press, 2000-JUN-26. Online at: web "AT&T adds same sex benefits for homosexual employees", American Family Association at: web Eagle has a a list of employers in Canada which grant same-sex benefits at: web Future Aspects The debate of homosexual marriages will be continued on whether it is legalized or not. Its future ramifications upon society can only be guessed upon and expectant on its true affect upon society. A change in this aspect of culture will alter humanity's view and definitely change society.

If legalized, homosexual marriages could benefit culture in opening the doors to new views of 'normalcy' and broaden the world's position as human beings. The world is ever changing and ever growing, it would only be a new step in the ladder of human life. This change would be the acceptance the homosexual society has needed to feel truly welcomed into the patterns of the rest of society. On the other hand, it also could ruin the framework of society in which we built today upon. Traditions have changed, but a change this great would change religion, science, and what the world has accepted as right.

The world has not seen a change to what has been considered 'right' in sexuality before. A change of this magnitude could not go unnoticed. If homosexual marriages remained banned, the struggle would continue as it has. Homosexuals would persistently fight for the world's acceptance to their truth and encourage the world to see them as fellow humans. The struggle would press on and they would gather strength for the next battle towards equality.

Those in favor of the continued ban would take it as a victory and also press on for the preservation of traditions and the time-honored view of the consummation between a man and a woman. With history on their side, they would push on firmly holding true to what they hold as truth. Whatever the outcome may be, the World, as a community will see a change in its society. It may be positive or it may be negative, but a change to the family structure, to traditions, and to society is inevitable. A change to humanity will come and time will tell what that change will be.