SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.   Term Paper ID:22126 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Social, legal, symbolic, religious pros & cons in U.S. & Canada.... More...

9 Pages / 2025 Words 10 sources, 15 Citations, TURABIAN Format $36.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Social, legal, symbolic, religious pros & cons in U.S. & Canada. Paper Introduction: INTRODUCTION The issue to be discussed is whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another. There are a number of rationales that have been offered by those in the gay community as to why they should be allowed to marry, and generally the impetus has come not from a desire to be married as such but as a result of various social and economic benefits denied to gay people because they cannot marry. For some in the gay community, demands for gay marriage may in fact be a form of challenge to the "straight" community, but those who are truly serious about the issue are attempting to secure for homosexual partners such rights taken for granted by heterosexual married couples as the right to inheritance, to insurance benefits, for one partner to visit the other in a hospital, and so on. Society has so far Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Homosexuality inspires ambivalence and confusion inmuch of the straight population. The bill would amend 55provincial laws and extend sick lave, pensions, drug plan coverage, andother employment benefits to homosexual couples by redefining the word"spouse" to include a partner of either sex: While gay activists and human-rights advocates support the bill, the leaders of the opposition Liberal and Conservative parties, as well as a coalition of church groups, are adamantly opposed.[11]The various provinces and the federal government in Canada are alsograppling with this issue. the state wants to change what is a family, what is normal or abnormal, and we must change our basic human instincts to conform with their political definitions.[15]She states that the ultimate result of this will be a diminishing of thelegitimacy of the family. [8]Sidney Callahan, "Why I Changed My Mind," Commonweal (April 22,1994), 7. The government in Alberta, on the other hand, appealed a courtdecision that would have forced it to do the same thing.[12] Many of those opposing these sorts of measures simply see the matteras too big a social change to be undertaken in the fashion it is beingaddressed at present. "A Clash of Values." MacLean's (June 13, 1994), 1 -11.Leo, John. Tensions between the gay and straight cultures of America have beennoted by sociologists and the news media for some time. [3]Katrine Ames, "Domesticated Bliss," Newsweek (March 23, 1992), 62-63. Some in the gaycommunity, however, see the domestic partnership as an inherently second-class status that even at its best lacks the symbolic value of marriage.[2] Domestic partnership itself was unheard of a few years ago, but morerecently it has been adopted by a handful of corporations and a dozen localgovernments across the country. . [12]Ibid., 1 -11. These issues can be addressedthrough legislation to give people living together these rights, and thearrangement that results is called a domestic partnership. The gay communityhas taken a lead from the civil rights movement and more and more hasasserted itself as a political force, demanding recognition, respect, andequal treatment under the law. . Gays discovered that they could not count on the sameprotections married couples take for granted, such as insurance benefits,bereavement leaves, and inheritance rights. [1 ]"UMC Bishop Rejects Gay Union Liturgies," Christian Century(October 21, 1992), 928-929. "Ontario and Gays: A New Frontier?." MacLean's (June 6, 1994), 9.Callahan, Sidney. Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships.[7] RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS As noted, one of the primary sources of opposition to the idea of gaymarriage comes from certain Christian groups. Society has so far deemed marriage to mean more than this and tohave at least the possibility of procreating children, and this idea,sometimes but not necessarily touted as a demonstration of dedication tofamily or so-called "family values," is used as an argument to deny gaysthe right to marry one another. The Roman Catholic Churchopposes such marriages, for instance, and teaches a number of doctrineswith reference to homosexuality in general. She notes that the government might want to doso for emotional and symbolic reasons, "to give a seal of approval to someof its citizens who have a different sexuality from society's norm."[14]Homosexuals, she says, want society's full approval and officialrecognition. Ettelbrick offers a different view from within the gaycommunity as she sees no reason for gays to pursue an institution thatdenies liberation rather than conferring it: Steeped in a patriarchal system that looks to ownership, property, and dominance of men over women as its basis, the institutions of marriage has long been the focus of radical-feminist revulsion. [9]Kittredge Cherry and James Mitulski, "Committed Couples in the GayCommunity," The Christian Century (February 28, 199 ), 218. This may be all that some are asking, while others aredemanding a social acceptance as well. Ettelbrick states thatmarriage will not liberate lesbians or gays and will instead constrainthem, make them more invisible, force their assimilation into themainstream, and undermine the goals of gay liberation. [2]Eloise Salholz, "For Better or for Worse," Newsweek (May 24, 1993),69. Yet there are clearlyproblems for the homosexual in the Church, as Sidney Callahan shows when hewrites: But why is it intrinsically disordered for homosexuals and lesbians to act on their sexual orientation, even if they would fulfill all the same moral conditions required of homosexual marital activity, such as commitment, love, and lifelong fidelity? For some in the gaycommunity, demands for gay marriage may in fact be a form of challenge tothe "straight" community, but those who are truly serious about the issueare attempting to secure for homosexual partners such rights taken forgranted by heterosexual married couples as the right to inheritance, toinsurance benefits, for one partner to visit the other in a hospital, andso on. The termfor these "marriages" is "holy union," and they serve a special purpose inthe community and in the lives of individuals who undertake this ritual: Whereas heterosexual marriage services are rites of passage into the mainstream, holy unions are rites of rebellion against a society that denigrates same-sex relationships. INTRODUCTION The issue to be discussed is whether or not homosexuals should beallowed to marry one another. "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" In Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Suzanne Sherman (ed.). It is the centerpiece of our entire social structure, the core of the traditional notion of "family." Even in its present tarnished state, the marital relationship inspires sentiments suggesting that it is something almost suprahuman. I may simply be unlucky, but I have seen preciously few marriages over the course if my forty years that invite admiration and emulation. The rites andsacraments delivered to these couples challenge the status quo. He states his position as follows: I must confess at the outset that I am no fan of the "institution" of marriage as currently constructed and practiced. One of the results, probably a predictableresult, has been a backlash on the part of many against the gay community,leading to incidents of gay-bashing as well as the passage of laws againstthe so-called gay lifestyle and against giving gay people civil rights as agroup. The sort of domestic arrangements addressed, however, haveincreased more than 4 percent since 197 , with more Americans livingtogether outside marriage. . [4]Thomas B. [5]Ibid., 17-18. Clearly the word "marriage"carries certain connotations that the heterosexual world wants to protect.Social conservatives and religious leaders in most denominations have takenthe view that marriage is intrinsically a matter between men and women.Indeed, some people in the gay community also see marriage as aheterosexual institution with which they want no part, but gays consideringthe issue today have been forced into this issue by the realities of theAIDS epidemic. Stoddard wants the issue putin the forefront even tough he is convinced that it will lose. It is not clear whether Amiel and those who would agree with her havethe same beliefs about domestic partnership approaches, since she isaddressing only the Ontario legislation which would go much further. At the federal level, amendments wereintroduced to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would explicitly prohibitdiscrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Ettelbrick, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?,"in Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Suzanne Sherman (ed.) (Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press, 1992), 2 . Couples who live in holy unions are more likely to maintain a lifelong commitment. Domestic partnership maybe defined in different ways, but it is presently confined almostexclusively to cohabitants who have a stable, intimate relationship and arefinancially interdependent. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992. The church holds more than 1 same-sex weddings each yearalong with a handful of heterosexual marriages. After all, some heterosexual marriages need not, nor can be biologically procreative. Lesbians and gay men are now denied entry to this "noble" and "sacred" institution. News & World Report (May24, 1993), 19. Attitudes toward gay rights havegenerally become more liberal over time, but still 7 percent of Americansoppose same-sex marriages, while only 53 percent oppose homosexualrelationships between consenting adults. There are a number of rationales that havebeen offered by those in the gay community as to why they should be allowedto marry, and generally the impetus has come not from a desire to bemarried as such but as a result of various social and economic benefitsdenied to gay people because they cannot marry. "For Better or for Worse," Newsweek (May 24, 1993), 69.Stoddard, Thomas B. He offershis rationale for this decision when he states, Marriage is much more than a relationship sanctioned by law. This alsomeans that there are many gay couples who live together in committedrelationships that for all intents and purposes would appear to bemarriages if the couple consisted of one representative of each gender.This fact and appeals for justice for this particular type of domesticpartnership has produced some results, for in 1993 the state supreme courtof Hawaii opened the door to legal marriage by ruling that Hawaii'sexisting ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional unless the state canshow that the prohibition is justified by a compelling state interest.[1] MEANING OF MARRIAGE In part, the argument may be waged over the meaning of marriage andspecifically over what those asking for the right for gays to marry mean bythe term. The implicit message is this: two men or two women are incapable of achieving such an exalted domestic state. In 1992, the city council of Washington, D.C.passed an ordinance stating that almost anyone living together, includingsiblings or platonic friends, would be defined as a domestic partnership.The measure did not go into effect because Congress did not approve it.Domestic partnership has often been seen as a gay issue, though this is notnecessarily the case, and indeed the vast majority of people using domesticpartnership laws are heterosexual. This wasconsidered one of the most controversial pieces of legislation from the NewDemocratic Party government and would be the most sweeping charter ofrights for homosexuals anywhere in Canada. The picture that much of America has of gays is based largely onmedia images from urban centers, but this ignores the fact that gay peopleare found throughout America, in every walk of life, and probably in everycommunity, though they may not be open about it in many places. . [14]Ibid., 9. The legislation in Ontario isa same-sex rights bill that would, among other things, allow homosexualmarriages and allow homosexual couples to adopt children. Lesbian and gay relationships, being neither legally sanctioned nor commingled by blood, are always at the bottom of the heap of social acceptance and importance.[6]For Ettelbrick, same-sex marriage is only a capitulation to this view and ademeaning attempt to prove the value of homosexuality. The bishop issued astatement declaring such ceremonies as causing pain and confusion and so assomething that should not be performed by UMC clergy or conducted in UMCfacilities.[1 ] CANADIAN ADVANCES While this issue has been argued for some time in the United Stateswith little progress except for occasional and far-flung examples of adegree of acceptance for same-sex marriages in certain religious services,the issue in Canada has produced legislation that in turn galvanized anumber of church groups into the opposition. [11]D'Arcy Jenish, "A Clash of Values," MacLean's (June 13, 1994), 1 . I just cannot imagine Christ acting such an unequal sacrifice from homosexual persons with beloved partners who have not been called to vowed celibacy.[8] A different view emerges from the Metropolitan Community Church ofSan Francisco, a church in the heart of the lesbian and gay community inthat city. [15]Ibid., 9.----------------------- 9 He discusses the institution of marriage and finds it wanting, butin spite of these he believes that gay couples should seek their right tomake this choice. "Why Gay People Should Seek the Right to Marry." In Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Suzanne Sherman (ed.). Gay relationships are somehow less significant, less valuable.[5]For Stoddard, gays have to demand their rights and show that they are justas valuable as heterosexuals. It is clear they mean for some sort of legal recognition of thedomestic arrangements of gay citizens so those citizens can enjoy certainlegal benefits. To the degree that they wantbasic fairness and certain benefits, and to the extent that such benefitswould also be wanted by unmarried heterosexual partners, they know thatsuch things could be achieved short of state-sanctioned marriage. Almost 3 million of the nation's 93 millionhouseholds today consist of unmarried couples. In some cities, while couples can register,they get little out of it but a title, for instance.[3] ARGUMENTS IN THE GAY COMMUNITY Thomas B. The denomination is theUniversal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. The benefits accruing in domesticpartnerships also vary widely. At the same time,she says that she does not deny the value of domestic-partnershipordinances because such laws can make gays more equal with straights,though their value can always be only partial. "Why I Changed My Mind." Commonweal (April 22, 1994), 7- 9.Cherry, Kittredge and James Mitulski. She also says that what is at stake is the definition of thefamily: . Their public declarations encourage the gathered community to hold them accountable to their vows and to support them in a way that their families and churches of origin may not.[9] United Methodist pastors in Indiana were recently told to refrainfrom ceremonies involving homosexuals that "resemble the rite of marriage,"and this came after a controversy over a "Celebration of Holy Covenant" inwhich two gay men exchanged rings--the ceremony did not include an exchangeof formal vows or an official marriage liturgy. Quebec and Albertaare moving in opposite directions on the issue. Stoddard, "Why Gay People Should Seek the Right to Marry," in Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Suzanne Sherman (ed.) (Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press, 1992), 13-14. . "Committed Couples in the Gay Community." The Christian Century (February 28, 199 ), 218-22 .Ettelbrick, Paula L. The number of "traditional"families has at the same time declined steadily. No American jurisdiction asyet recognizes the right of two women or two men to marry one another,though several nations in northern Europe do. Christis said to love and include the gay in his kingdom. BibliographyAmes, Katrine. The Church teaches thathomosexuals are to be seen as equal children of God who must be protectedfrom assault, bigotry, and any infringement on their civil rights. . 13-19."UMC Bishop Rejects Gay Union Liturgies." Christian Century (October 21, 1992), 928-929.----------------------- [1]John Leo, "Gay Rights, Gay Marriages," U.S. There has been significant opposition tothis sort of arrangement as well, largely from conservatives and religiousgroups. Barbara Amiel states that this change "wouldredefine human relationships as we have known them since the beginning ofrecorded history."[13] She offers a number of reasons why the Ontariogovernment might want to pass such legislation, as well as a number ofreasons why it should not. [7]Ibid., 21. She furtherindicates that attaining the right to marry will not transform our society from one that makes narrow, but dramatic, distinctions between those who are married and those who are not married to one that respects and encourages choice of relationships and family diversity. Thechurch further acknowledges that personal qualities and the call toholiness are not determined by sexual orientation. The Quebec Human RightsCommission released a report containing 41 recommendations and calling forlegislative changes to allow for same-sex couples to benefit in variousways. [13]Barbara Amiel, "Ontario and Gays: A New Frontier?," MacLean's (June6, 1994), 9. Stoddard argues that gay people should seek the right tomarry. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992, 2 -26.Jenish, D'Arcy. Nevertheless, despite the oppressive nature of marriage historically, and in spite of the general absence of edifying examples of modern heterosexual marriage, I believe very strongly that every lesbian and gay man should have the right to marry the same-sex partner of his or her choice, and that the gay-rights movement should aggressively seek full legal recognition for same-sex marriages.[4] Stoddard notes some of the history of the issue and the fact that inthe 197 s, same-sex couples in Minnesota, Kentucky, and Washington broughtconstitutional challenges to the marriage status and failed. "Domesticated Bliss." Newsweek (March 23, 1992), 62-63.Amiel, Barbara. Homosexualityaccording to the Church is not freely chosen but a given condition. [6]Paula L. Giventhe argument in the homosexual community, it is also not clear that she isright about what homosexual couples want. "Gay Rights, Gay Marriages." U.S. Paula L. News & World Report (May 24, 1993), 19.Salholz, Eloise. At present, there are huge legalhurdles to same-sex marriage, but there are social and religious barriersthat are even greater. The courtoffered two basic justifications for limiting marriage to male-femalecouples in all cases--history and procreation. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.