Same Sex Marriage and Policy Should Same

Same Sex Marriage and Policy

Should Same Sex Marriage be Legalized

Should Same Sex Marriages be legalized?

Hunter, writing in 1991, described same-sex marriage as a possibility that "shimmers or lurks-depending on one's point-of-view -- on the horizon of the law" (p. 10).

Over the last fifteen years, homosexual's rights have emerged as one of the most contentious issues in American politics. Increasing number of friends and family members has "come out," interest groups in both sides have mobilized, and public officials have staked out positions. The current freedom-to-marry movement did not emerge until the mid-1990s, and then only in response to a conservative backlash in state legislators across the country, but individual couples have been applying for marriage licenses, been denied those licenses, and have been filing lawsuits for last 40 years. Families, communities, generations, and political parties have become divided. New issues have entered the political discourse that would have been unthinkable a generation ago, such as allowing same-sex couples equal marriage rights, the right to adopt children, or the right to serve openly in the militarily.

Consequently, one of the most notable observations about homosexual rights is the rapid pace of change that has occurred in both public opinion and public policy. Prior to 1974, the American Psychological Association has considered homosexuality a mental illness. No state protected gays and lesbians form discrimination until 1982 and no state specifically included "sexual orientation" in its hate crimes law until 1989. As of 2007, twenty states banned sexual orientation discrimination and thirty one made sexual orientation a protected category under their hate crimes statutes. Even more remarkably, same-sex marriage is now a legal in Massachusetts, and six other states provide equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

This paper comprises two section; section 1 addresses a social welfare policy i.e. antidiscrimination laws and its impacts to the homosexuals community and section 2 of the paper discusses policy question that is whether same sex marriages be legalized?

B. Policy Analysis:

Anti-Discrimination Laws

The policy I chose to examine is anti-discrimination laws. Over the past twenty-five years, a number of states have extended this protection to gays and lesbians. In most cases, the category of "sexual orientation" was simply added to existing state anti-discrimination laws covering other groups, and included protections in areas such as housing, public accommodations, credit, education, and employment. As of 2007, twenty states had extended the scope of these laws to cover "sexual orientation." In these states protection is comprehensive; however there are other states which only proscribe public sector employment discrimination.

Harm Caused by Discrimination and the Religious Correlation

There is no question that a significant portion of the gay and lesbian population has expressed having experienced some kind of discriminatory treatment in the workplace. Similarly, a significant number of CEOs have indicated in surveys that they would hesitate to give management jobs to workers who are homosexual (Kovach, 1994, p.1).

Policy Impact on Community

This policy had a very positive impact on gay and lesbian community. Over the period of time there is less discrimination towards homosexuals seen in the society.

Policy Question

The question this research paper addressing is; should same sex marriage be legalized?. Below is a detailed discussion on the supporter and opponents' views and arguments as well as different basic human rights and civil liberty rights.

Same Sex Marriage

The topic of same-sex marriage has created debate between its supporters and opponents as well as within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) communities. The first, and perhaps the most popular opposition to same-sex marriage came from religious groups (Lahey & Alderson, 2004, p. 20); and not all LGBTQ individuals, especially those active during the gay liberation era, embraced the legalization of same-sex marriage.

In 1953, EB Saunders wrote an article in ONE posing the question of whether gay marriage was a good idea. He posited that the year was 2053 and that homosexuality had gained widespread acceptance, and then queried whether "deviates" would be allowed to pursue sexual pleasures with as little inhibition as they did in 1953, or if, like heterosexuals before Eisenstadt, they must be married to have sexual intercourse. Saunders worried that accepting homosexual sex without marriage "would loosen heterosexual marriage ties, too, and make even shallower the meaning of marriage as we know it. It cannot be seriously claimed that this would be a goodthing."( E.B. Saunders,1953) Saunders also worried about "what legal developments would come of the objection by the "Mr." that "Mrs." doesn't contribute equally? In heterosexual marriage, the wife has the general drop on the husband in that she bears children hence needn't punch a time clock as nature apparently decrees he must. Will there be a new law forbidding one person to be 'kept' by another then?"(Saunders, 1953) Saunders believed that "for heterosexuals, at least, there yet has been found a better arrangement on which to base the family unit. Heterosexual marriage must be protected. The acceptance of homosexuality without homosexual marriage ties would be an attack uponit."( Saunders, 1953) Saunders believed that homosexuality should remain a deviant practice, outside of both marriage and the realm of "acceptable behaviour," in order for it to remain free. For Saunders, the value of homosexuality resided in its free sexuality and household arrangements, a virtue that could not be extended to heterosexuals without disrupting society as a whole and could not be accepted by the mainstream without risking traditional marriage.

Opponents Arguments

The opposition from religious groups is based on the argument that marriage is a religious domain and religious teachings condemn homosexuality. Their basic assumption is that same-sex marriage should not be allowed because churches should have as much authority as the legal system in matters of marriage. Another often cited argument against same-sex marriage by religious population is that the purpose of marriage is to create an optimal environment for child rearing. Rev. David Henry, a former host of Christian broadcast, stated that same-sex legislation will transform an institution of marriage that is meant for procreation and nurturing of children into the legal protection of the needs and the desires of adult relationships (White, 2005, p. A6).

Other critics rejected gay marriage simply on the basis of the intrinsic biological or cultural differences between men and women, and the ways in which this altered the utility of marriage. Most referred to children when they cited biological differences. Some opponents of gay marriage argued that "to adopt children, take out insurance on each other, set up bourgeois house does not represent, for them, a solution."( Herbert Gant, 1966) A marriage opponent interviewed by The Advocate echoed the idea that gay men and lesbians didn't need marriage since they did not have children: "The word marriage means bride and groom down the aisle. That act is a heterosexual thing, almost laughable in our situation. But that doesn't cover babies, cleaning the house, dirty diapers, sickness."( Charlotte Versagi, 1982) Others pointed more to the cultural difference in men and women that gay men and lesbians did not face. One journalist who opposed gay marriage indicated that "what holds many heterosexual marriages together is, I suggest, a basic male-female polarity, largely biologic in nature. Whereas in homosexual relations, although a polarity does exist, it is not ofthis obvious male-female sort, no, it remains a polarity of temperament, of interests, of character."154 This journalist eventually concluded that the inability to have children provided just one "certain way in which they are never, no matter how hard they try, going to succeed in imitating a heterosexual marriage."155 Similarly a social scientist who opposed gay marriage explained in an interview with the Advocate that gay relationships would always differ from straight for several reasons, including "sex roles. Males are socialized differently from females, and when a male comes into a relationship with a female, there are certain roles he assumes. But when two men come together, there may or may not be social roles. There will certainly not be gender-related roles: you sew, and shop and take care of the children, and I work in the garden and fix the car."156

Gay activists who opposed gay marriage rejected the idea of embracing a repressive institution for themselves that heterosexuals astutely seemed to be casting aside. In other words, they saw cohabitors as allies in overthrowing a marital regime that inhibited the free expression of love and sexuality. Journalist Hermann Stoessell wondered if marriage was the answer to homosexuals' desire for stability in their relationships, but quickly answered "the twentieth century heterosexual can reply to that question. He's abandoning marriage, at least of the 'til death do us part' variety. Should we pick up the remnants of a system he is casting off?"157 Similarly, Jim Kepner in the Advocate wrote, "I think it is neither an accident nor a sign of the failure of homosexual lifestyle that most Gays don't do that. Most of us (female or male, hetero or homo) weren't cut out for that straitjacket, and young hetero rebels are amazed to hear of Gays fighting so hard to get into it." Kepner then quoted Marnie Jacobs, who also argued, "now that a few heterosexuals are beginning to throw off their chains, the homosexuals come in demanding an equal share of the old slavery. How crazy can we get?" Pat Arrowsmith, a British lesbian activist and peace promoter, famously married to claim her inheritance left to her under her father's condition that she take a husband. Arrowsmith told the British press that "marriage is a foolish institution' and she will be glad to make a mockery of it."[footnoteRef:2] After her marriage to a man who had married another woman to get her citizenship, Arrowsmith planned to donate her inheritance to various causes. [2: "Lesbian Marries for Money," Body Politic, 47 (Oct. 78), 16.]

The opposition to same-sex marriage is not only from religious groups, but there are some other hostile groups who are quite open about their dislike of homosexual individuals let alone the issue of same-sex marriage. These individuals are often perceived as homophobic, and they rarely gather open sympathy or support. Apart from the hostile outside opponents, there is also opposition within the supporters of same-sex marriage. These opponents seem to be wary of their assimilation into mainstream society via state regulation marriage, arguing that the extension of rights to marry can mask the problem underlying the same-sex marriage debate, e.g., the heteronormative nature of society (Lehr, 1999, p. 14; Warner, 1999, p. 88). Some lesbians and gay individuals are even puzzled over the popularity of same-sex marriage debate. To these individuals, the pursuit of same-sex marriage is frivolous, compared to other urgent issues. Other opponents within the lesbian and gay community argue that the extension of marriage to same-sex couples would only benefit certain groups, namely professionals, white, middle-class, able-bodied lesbians and gays whose families look very like the traditional heterosexual ideal (Donovan, 2004, p. 25).

Supporting Arguments

Human Rights/Civil Liberties

On the other hand, the support for same-sex marriage is as diverse as the reasons offered to oppose it. However, the most cited argument seems to be embedded within the human rights context. The Charter of Rights and Freedom prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Therefore, many supporters feel that extending the right to marry is the only rightful action. The creation of civil partnerships addresses the problem of discrimination at the cost of creating an apartheid system of state-recognized relationships: marriage, which is open only to opposite sex couples, and partnership registration, which is open only to same-sex couples. (Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 2004, p. 133)

The arguments offered by both opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage are well grounded and appealing. However, it is probably reasonable to assume that as people get used to the idea of same-sex marriage the opposition will decrease overtime. It will be interesting to see how the attitudes towards same-sex marriage will change over the next decade and beyond. For example, the opposition to same-sex marriage could decrease over time as the population at large grows comfortable with the notion of same-sex marriage; thereafter, a change in people's attitude could come at much slower rate.

Liberty

A discussion of liberty must deal directly with a citizen's fundamental rights, regardless of any benefits proven to be associated with exercising that right. Two main questions related to the topic of my essay that I am discussing here are as follow: Do same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry? Does case law of the constitution support such valid unions?

The Supreme Court decided in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be barred based on race. But the Court did not just invalidate interracial marriage bans; they also stated that marriage is a "basic civil right fundamental to our very and existence and survival... A fundamental freedom" that cannot be infringed upon by the state due to "discrimination" (Loving v. Virginia, 1967). This is broader and more inclusive of other groups which the U.S. society discriminates. This suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court, carrying Loving v. Virginia to its logical conclusions, invalidates the ban against any class of marriages solely dependent upon discrimination in the society. Ronner (2005) makes a compelling argument that society, the courts, and legislation have discriminated against gay men and lesbians throughout the history of the United States. Just as with interracial marriage, tradition and continued discrimination argue for a ban against same-sex marriage, but the constitution at its basis protects citizens against unlawful infringement upon their rights.

The Supreme Court in 1967 used the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in their decision (U.S. Constitution, 1788). It states that no citizen shall be denied equal protection of the laws. So the question becomes is the state protecting heterosexual couples but not same-sex couples? The answer is resounding yes. All of the benefits like protection for the health, financial well being, and mental health of heterosexual couples, but are not afforded to same-sex couples. This directly concerns liberty because it is a choice allowed to opposite-sex couples that are not allowed to same-sex couples.