Sam* and Alex* have been together for two years. Recently, they decided that they would like to buy a house together. Unfortunately, they are homosexual and are having trouble attaining a loan.. If they were married, as they one day hope to be, there would be no problem getting a home loan . Marriage is not an option for Sam and Alex in the state where they live. Because they are gay, they are unable to legalize their relationship in 48 of the 50 states.
The issue of gay marriage is a very controversial subject since the late 1970’s. As of 2004, same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in any U. S. ate . Recently the development of same sex civil unions include the state of Vermont, which are designed to be similar to marriage. On May 16th 2004, the a backdrop of whoops and cheers and a party spilled onto the streets, gay and lesbian couples here began filling out applications for marriage licenses at 12:01 a. m. on Monday, when Massachussetts became the first state in the country to allow them to marry (Belluck). In 2004 a few local government officials, most notably the city officials of San Francisco, started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite being in conflict with state laws.
In 1993, Hawaii and California legalized the marriage of gay individuals, with Vermont not far behind. Proponents of this measure feel that this current movement toward recognition of same sex relationships has been a long time coming. Those who are against gay marriages feel that by allowing gay individuals to marry, the whole concept of marriage would be destroyed. The multi-disciplinary view of same sex marriages is that the opposition of theses unions hold strong in their belief of the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The solution to this issue is satisfy both sides the concept of Domestic Partnerships.
By offering Domestic Partnerships, homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual couples) will be eligible for all of the same rights, responsibilities and benefits accorded to married heterosexual couples. Also, homosexual couples will be recognized as a legitimate union. This option will please the supporters and the opposers of this issue. Since 1989, same sex marriages have been legal in Denmark. Researchers have found that “the divorce rate among Danish homosexuals is only seventeen percent compared to forty-six percent for heterosexuals”(Jones, 22). Psychologists believe that there are several reasons for this.
Most homosexuals who are married have been together for several years before the wedding. Unlike heterosexuals, who often are wed months after the relationship begins. Also, married homosexuals tend to be older when they tie the knot. Finally, “Danish gays and lesbians rarely divorce… (because)… only those who are strongly motivated to marry do so, given society’s disapproval of overt homosexuality”(Jones, 22). Since the legalization of gay marriages in Hawaii and California are so recent, there are no current studies on the divorce rates among homosexuals in the United States.
However, one would believe that Danish statistics in this area would be comparable. “Marriage, the Supreme Court declared in 1967, is ‘one of the basic civil rights of man’… ‘the freedom to marry is essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness'”(Stoddard, 413). The Supreme Court did not differentiate between a homosexual person and a heterosexual person. It seems that the basic argument against same sex marriages it that, by allowing them, we would be desecrating the holiness of marriage and the traditional family union.
Marriage creates families and promotes social stability. In an increasingly loveless world, those who wish to commit themselves to a relationship founded upon devotion should be encouraged”(Stoddard, 413). Opponents disagree and feel that same sex marriages are unacceptable. However, they are not looking at the statistics of what family has become in today’s world. In the 1990’s, the definition of family is no longer a husband, wife and two children. There are so many ways to define family that most people think of family as a group of people who love and care for each other.
Almost 3 million of the country’s 93 million households now consist of unmarried couples”(Ames,et. al). Many groups are noticing this movement toward the non-traditional family and are taking steps to provide support. “Fran and I chose to get married for the same reason that any two people do,” said the lawyer who was fired in Georgia. “We fell in love; we wanted to spend our lives together (Quiden 411). ” In 1992, Lotus Development Corporation became the first large firm to offer benefits “to the ‘spousal equivalents’ of its gay and lesbian employees”(Spector).
Soon after, other companies followed suit. Ben and Jerry’s Homemade Incorporated and Levi Strauss along with many other small companies offer benefits to same sex partners of their employees. These companies are definitely not in the majority but it is a start in the right direction. Not all companies offer these benefits because it is the right thing to do. “Some do it only after employees put pressure on them; some believe it will make them more competitive”(Ames, et. al. ). Whatever the reason, same sex unions are becoming recognized as valid relationships.
The obvious next step is Domestic Partnerships. Currently, the approach to same sex marriage “can be divided into three models: de factors, the registered partnerships and the peculiar”(Graff,74). The de factors are countries that recognize heterosexual unmarried couples. According to these provisions, “couples that live together for a year or tow are automatically recognized for everything from pension, and inheritance to inheritance rights and alimony”(Graff,75). In Canada, lesbian and gay couples are treated like unmarried heterosexual couples and are provided with legal protection and benefits.
Peculiars are countries that have unique cultural and legal situations and therefore, cannot be compared to the United States. In South Africa, for example, “same sex partners (are treated) as ‘spouses’ for everything from health insurance to immigration rights to pension”(Graff,75). Finally, Registered Partnerships are very popular throughout Europe. The first Registered Partnership law was passed in Denmark in 1989. This law states that “(except for adoption or church weddings) every law that mentions marriage or spouses will apply equally to same sex registration and partners””(Graff,75).
In 1996, Gay partnerships were made legal in Iceland. As of 1997, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have essentially the same type of Registered Partnership Law. However, non-residents may not travel to any of these countries in order to be legally wedded as a gay couple. One member of the couple must be a resident in order to enjoy the right of gay marriage. (Wockner, 26), These countries are jumping ahead of the United States by leaps and bound on this issue. It seems as if religious activists guide the United States on this issue.
The Catholic Catechism says that homosexuals ” do not choose” their sexual orientation and “deserve to be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. ” It also “declares that homosexual acts are ‘intrinsically disordered’ and that under no circumstances can they be approved”(Billitteri,10). For devout homosexual Catholics, this declaration is both hurtful and devastating. The Catholic Church has told homosexuals that they are malfunctioning and therefore are accepted by the church but only to a point. For these Catholics, marriage is the natural step when one finds a life partner.
However, the Church strictly forbids gay marriages. Therefore, homosexuals cannot complete their relationship according to The Church, despite the rejection from the Catholic Church, there is a grass roots movement to accept homosexuals. Although most clerics do not allow for the validation of same sex relationships, there is still some religious support available. One such type of outreach program is Courage. This organization supports homosexual Catholics but requires complete abstinence. Courage provides spiritual support for gay Catholics whom the Church has turned away.
Other small dioceses actively reach out to homosexuals without the stringent requirement of chastity. These dioceses offer support and compassion for Catholic homosexuals. Sister Jeannine Grammick confounded New Ways ministry to help “promote reconciliation between lesbian and gay Catholics and the Church. ” Grammick says, “Unfortunately, many church leaders seem to reduce lesbian and gay persons to sexual activity and we don’t do that to heterosexual persons. “(Billitteri,14). Along with these few supporters within the Catholic clergy the Vatican also has to consider the public opinion of gay marriage.
According to 1996 Gallup Poll results, “Americans are less opposed to homosexuality in general” and “a third of men age 18 to 29 said… that gay marriages should be legally recognized, and more than half of the women respondents in that age group answered likewise”(Billitteri,14). As we speed into the future, one has to wonder if the Catholic Church will not open its arms at least a little to the gay and lesbian community as the homosexual lifestyle becomes more mainstream. The Catholic Church is not alone in its declaration against gay marriage.
Recently, the Presbyterian Church had to confront the issue within their clergy. “At issue is whether clergy should be barred by the Presbyterian Church (USA) and possibly punished for performing marriage-like ceremonies that celebrate the union of gay partners”(Morris, 1). When performing these ceremonies, the ministers do use the word marriage in the uniting ceremony. This issue has caused a divide between the Synod of the Northeast and the Hudson River Presbytery. The Presbytery allows ministers the option of performing same sex ceremonies.
The Synod disagrees. They feel that marriage is between a man and a woman only. Julius Poppinga, a Presbyterian elder who opposes same sex marriage feels that “by playing a semantic game with the language, you can continue to do what the church says is in violation of (church code). ” Reverend Cliff Frasier, a gay Presbyterian minister, disagrees,” Holy union is a particularly sanctified way of modeling God’s image in our lives. For the church to withdraw its affirmation of that is to abandon and neglect many of God’s children. Morris,2).
It seems that more individuals are recognizing the right to marry for homosexuals. Hopefully, this movement will continue until we reach a solution. Unfortunately, there is more to this battle than just achieving the right to same sex marriages. In 1996, President Clinton signed a bill that would deny federal recognition of homosexual marriages. This bill is also known as the Defense of Marriage Act. This law states that “states (will have)the right not to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere. “(Hansen,24).
In California, the Protection of Marriage Committee is lobbying for the Protection of Marriage Initiative. The initiative would state that only “a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. ” This web site says that the committee “understand(s) the difference between respecting a person’s right to same sex relationship and endorsing same sex marriages,” however, “people will continue to have the right to live as they choose but not to remake the definition of marriage for our entire society”(http://doma. org). Homosexuals are not asking to remake a definition.
All we ask for are the same rights and responsibilities granted heterosexual couples”, states Benjamin Cable-McCarthy. Cable-McCarthy is a California resident who, in 1991, united with his partner despite the lack of legal binding. What Cable-McCarthy and other like him ask for is not extreme nor is it abnormal to wish for. However, it will be some time before the United States accepts same sex couples a real, important entity of today’s society. Due to the strong support for those against gay marriages, the believe that allowing for Domestic Partnerships would be the ideal solution to this issue.
Domestic Partnerships would provide same sex couples the opportunity to benefit from all of the same things as heterosexual married couples. This solution would please the opponents because we would not be redefining marriage, as they say. It would also please the supporters because it would offer a legally binding contract similar to a marriage to same sex couples. Hopefully, we will continue to open our minds and recognize that we are all human beings and that is what truly matters.