SAME SEX MARRIAGE.   Term Paper ID:28501 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Analyzes objections & argues that same-sex marriage should not be enacted into law. Abstract.... More...

7 Pages / 1575 Words 9 sources, 10 Citations, MLA Format $28.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Analyzes objections & argues that same-sex marriage should not be enacted into law. Abstract. Paper Introduction: Abstract Same-sex marriage has never been allowed in law or religious doctrine, but recently Hawaii has passed a law to allow same-sex marriage. Other stats have objected and fear being forced to recognize such unions. Religious leaders protest as well and see such a law as a threat to religious freedom. Many see same-sex marriage as a threat to the definition of marriage and to the family and marital bonds in society as well. The reasons for these objections are analyzed, as well as the reasons why same-sex marriage should not be enacted into law. 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 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. 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. Homosexuality inspires ambivalence and confusion inmuch of the straight population. The reasons for these objections are analyzed, as well as thereasons why same-sex marriage should not be enacted into law. "Presbyterian Panel Votes to Forbid Gay Unions." The Dallas Morning News (July 2, 2 ), 1 A.Salholz, Eloise. Gays discovered that they could not count on the sameprotections married couples take for granted, such as insurance benefits,bereavement leaves, and inheritance rights. The benefits accruing in domesticpartnerships also vary widely. 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? There has been significant opposition tothis sort of arrangement as well, largely from conservatives and religiousgroups. These issues can be addressedthrough legislation to give people living together these rights, and thearrangement that results is called a domestic partnership. 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 ("UMC Bishop Rejects Gay Union Liturgies" 928-929). 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. "For Better or for Worse," Newsweek (May 24, 1993), 69."UMC Bishop Rejects Gay Union Liturgies." Christian Century (October 21, 1992), 928-929. More recently, the top decision-making body of the PresbyterianChurch (U.S.A.) voted to ban same-sex marriage, with supporters of theamendment described it as upholding a traditional Christian view ofmarriage. Tensions between the gay and straight cultures of America have beennoted by sociologists and the news media for some time. Abstract Same-sex marriage has never been allowed in law or religiousdoctrine, but recently Hawaii has passed a law to allow same-sex marriage.Other stats have objected and fear being forced to recognize such unions.Religious leaders protest as well and see such a law as a threat toreligious freedom. This may be all that some are asking, while others aredemanding a social acceptance as well. This legislation does not reallyprotect minority rights and does undercut majority rights and so should notbe adopted. United Methodist pastors in Indiana were told to refrain fromceremonies involving homosexuals that "resemble the rite of marriage," andthis 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. Works CitedCallahan, Sidney. 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. One church elder called it "the duty of the church" to serve as"a moral beacon" and call people to a life of holiness. Som in the gay community itself offer arguments against same-sexmarriage. The number of "traditional"families has at the same time declined steadily. 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. The denominationhas 2.6 million members in 11,4 congregations nationwide and representsone of the most historically influential streams of Protestantism in theUnited States (Niebuhr 1 A). The Roman Catholic Churchopposes such marriages, for instance, and teaches a number of doctrineswith reference to homosexuality in general. 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. It is clear they mean for some sort of legal recognition of thedomestic arrangements of gay citizens so those citizens can enjoy certainlegal benefits. "Why I Changed My Mind." Commonweal (April 22, 1994), 7- 9."The Defense of Marriage Act is Necessary Now." Books 'n Stuff (July 8, 1996), http://www.reagan.com/hottopics.main/ HotMike/document-7.8.1996.2.html.Ettelbrick, Paula L. "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" In Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Suzanne Sherman (ed.). 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. Another denomination which made a similardecision recently is the Methodists, and the chief policy-setting body ofthe United Methodist Church, which is America's third-largest religion,reaffirmed its traditional opposition to homosexuality and same-sexmarriages, voting to maintain the policy that homosexual activity is"incompatible with Christian teaching" ("Nations Digest" 4A). I just cannot imagine Christ acting such an unequal sacrifice from homosexual persons with beloved partners who have not been called to vowed celibacy (Callahan 7). This act doesnot change the situation in Hawaii, nor does it tell any other states whatto do. The Hawaiian legislation allowing same-sex marriage has become aspecific target for religious and political groups opposed to the idea ofsame-sex marriage. In some cities, while couples can register,they get little out of it but a title, for instance (Ames 62-63). "Gay 'Marriage.'" Family Policy (1996), http://www.frc.org/fampol/fp96bhs.html.Leo, John. The sort of domestic arrangements addressed, however, haveincreased more than 4 percent since 197 , with more Americans livingtogether outside marriage. This leads back to the minority report in Hawaii and what it saidsame-sex marriage would cause and so why it should be opposed. News & World Report (May 24, 1993), 19."National Digest." Minneapolis Star Tribune (May 9, 2 ).Niebuhr, Gustav. It said thelaw would bring Hawaii into conflict with other states, as it indeed has;it said that extending legal and economic benefits conferred on marriedcouples to same-sex couples or common-law marriages would be too costly; itnoted that the same benefits might be accomplished by legislation extendingcertain rights to all those who share a household, though this also mightbe too costly; and that protecting religious freedom demanded maintaining adefinition of marriage compatible with religious principles (Knight). Homosexualityaccording to the Church is not freely chosen but a given condition. Thechurch further acknowledges that personal qualities and the call toholiness are not determined by sexual orientation. The issue to be discussed is whether or not homosexuals should beallowed to marry one another. The potential costs of same-sex marriage are simply too high, and thesupposed benefits are too uncertain to challenge the definition of marriagethat has prevailed throughout history. At present, there are huge legalhurdles to same-sex marriage, but there are social and religious barriersthat are even greater. 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 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. "Gay Rights, Gay Marriages." U.S. 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(Salholz 69). 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. 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. It only affirms that each state will be able to decide for itselfwhat legal effect to accord another state's same-sex marriage laws ("TheDefense of Marriage Act Is Necessary Now"). 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. 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. As noted, one of the primary sources of opposition to the idea of gaymarriage comes from certain Christian groups. Many see same-sex marriage as a threat to thedefinition of marriage and to the family and marital bonds in society aswell. 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. 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 (Ettelbrick 2 ).For Ettelbrick, same-sex marriage is only a capitulation to this view and ademeaning attempt to prove the value of homosexuality. Critics of the policy point to the fact that it notonly threatens the integrity of the definition of marriage but alsothreatens religious freedom, as shown by the minority report producedduring the argument over the issue: Although the majority report recommends that religious institutions not be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies, it offers no defense for the conscientious Christian, Jew or Muslim (or Hindu or atheist, for that matter) who will not legally recognize same-sex "marriage." Law carries the potential use of force against those who will not abide by it (Knight). 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. 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 (Leo19). After all, some heterosexual marriages need not, nor can be biologically procreative. Christis said to love and include the gay in his kingdom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992, 2 -26.Knight, Robert H. Domestic partnership maybe defined in different ways, but it is presently confined almostexclusively to cohabitants who have a stable, intimate relationship and arefinancially interdependent. Almost 3 million of the nation's 93 millionhouseholds today consist of unmarried couples. 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. One response has been pressure in states such as California forpassage of a "Defense of Marriage Act," described as "a modest proposal" tocounter the law in Hawaii, which otherwise might force other states torecognize any same-sex marriages performed in that state. Paula L. 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.