Same sex marriage: legal rights and social perspectives

Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized

The issue of legalizing same-sex marriages has been the subject of major debate for several years, and was recently brought to the forefront during this past election year. Aside from public support, there are many in the academic world, such as scholars, lawmakers, and commentators who believe that legal status and benefits of marriage should be extended to unions other than traditional marriages (Wardle Pp). There is actually no logical reason why unions of same-sex couples should not be granted.

Throughout the election campaign, President Bush courted conservatives by promising to push for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages, and now that he has been re-elected, it is believed that he will definitely push for the amendment (Munro Pp). Karl Rove, senior adviser, said, "Without the protection of that amendment, we are at the mercy of activist federal judges or activist state judges who could determine, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court did, that marriage no longer consists of a union between a man and a woman" (Munro Pp). Earlier this year the amendment failed in both the House and the Senate, and opinion polls indicate that Americans are evenly split on the question of adding a marriage amendment to the Constitution, although on November 2, voters in eleven states passed state amendments banning same-sex marriages (Munro Pp).

President Bush has stated that he believes "marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other" (Gomes Pp). Yet within United States history, the concept of marriage has evolved in two other ways:

"women, traditionally considered the property of their husbands, eventually became full persons in the eyes of the law and gained the right to own property

themselves; and antimiscegenation laws,

which had prohibited or refused to recognize interracial marriages, were struck down" (Gomes Pp).

What has remained constant, until now, is the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, however, at least a handful of states has never limited marriage to unions between a man and a woman, but rather defined marriage using gender-neutral language (Gomes Pp).

It is time to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Recent census data reveals that the number of committed same-sex couple in the United States continues to rise, as does the number of same-sex couples raising children (Gomes Pp). It is important to legally recognize these relationships in order to protect the emotional and economic well-being of these families, and moreover, legal recognition "must be on an equal plane with heterosexual marriage -- separate but equal is never equal" (Gomes Pp).

It is safe to say that at some point in their lives, most people want to share their fortunes and misfortunes with someone whom they have formed lasting bonds (Gomes Pp). They want to provide emotional stability and economic security for their partner and loved ones, and more importantly, they want to know that their loved one's securities are protected by law (Gomes Pp). Same-sex couples are no different than heterosexuals, they want the best for their families (Gomes Pp).

It is estimated that approximately thirty-four percent of lesbian and twenty-two percent of gay male couples are raising children under the age of eighteen (Gomes Pp). One may argue that since these couples are presenting themselves to the world as married without state recognition, then why change the law to allow them true marital status (Gomes Pp). The answer is that the appearance of marriage is only a shadow of the actual privilege and denies the life partner the benefits and protections afforded to a legal spouse, and furthermore, interferes with the best interests of children by "treating gay families differently than nongay families" (Gomes Pp).

All states recognize statutes or common law doctrines granting decision-making powers to relatives when an individual becomes incompetent, and generally looks to a parent or child if the incompetent person is unmarried, and if married, then looks first to the spouse (Gomes Pp). State laws also grant the spouse part or all of a married person's assets if he or she dies without a will (Gomes Pp). Some states have broader laws providing for the appointment of a guardian or conservator to make medical decisions as well as decisions regarding care, residence, and financial matters, however, the "number of states conferring preferred decision-maker status or a portion of the interstate estate to a same-sex life partner can be counted on one hand" (Gomes Pp).

Although these laws were created to protect the incompetent person's interests and maintain privacy and respect for relationships, these protections are left to the whim of third parties in the case of same-sex couples (Gomes Pp). Often these third parties are parents, siblings, and children who have been estranged for the gay person and now stand to benefit from what the life partner loses (Gomes Pp). The blood relatives can exploit the homosexual relationship by "alleging that the life partner had undue influence where a will and/or power of attorney was executed, or by alleging that the mere existence of the homosexual relationship was a symptom of incompetence" (Gomes Pp).

Furthermore, the greater part of laws regulating the economic relationship of married couples treat the couple as a single economic unit and serves to protect the more economically dependent spouse (Gomes Pp). The laws are based on the assumption that married couples pool their assets and determine expenditures based on mutual benefit without regard for which spouse earned the money (Gomes Pp). This is no different than same-sex relationships, yet gay and lesbian couples lack the legal protections of married couples (Gomes Pp).

David Moats in "Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage details the recent battles in Vermont concerning the legalization of gay marriages. He also provides intimate portraits of many of the people to whom this issue effected, such as Lois and Holly, who had through the years taken in some fifteen foster children and in 1994 adopted one of them, thirteen-year-old Kimberly, who had the time of Moats' interview had just finished her first semester in college (Moats Pp 6). The book provides an invaluable insight into the legal issues of gay marriages as well as how the laws effect the families. Andrew Sullivan in "Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con: A Reader" provides both sides of the argument concerning same-sex marriages. However, Sullivan also provides historical references to show that same-sex unions are not a modern phenomenon. Sullivan points out that "Same-sex love as Plato's Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love" (Sullivan Pp 3). And according to Sullivan, in seventeenth century China and nineteenth century Africa, the institution seems identical to opposite sex marriage (Sullivan Pp 3). Moreover, in Native American society, marriage between two men was commonplace (Sullivan Pp3).