Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Gay Marriage

Discrimination is the Voice of Ignorance

Marriage is one of the fundamental establishments of the United States. As a

young person, one looks forward to many goals in their lifetime: career success, a good life, and, very often, marriage to the person they love and a family together. This is one of the biggest parts of our American life and culture. Very few heterosexuals would be willing to put their right to marry on a ballot for voter approval, or even in their wildest dreams [nightmares?] have to consider doing that. However, in the past ten years there has been a prospect gay men and women are facing all over our United States. Why is American culture so unaccepting of homosexual marriages and what are the repercussions of this for homosexual couples and for all of our citizens?

Homosexuality, as a lifestyle has always been under great fire in our culture. Homosexuality has been defined and termed in many contexts. The West Chester University Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Services states that, Given the variable aspects of sexual orientation and given evidence that an individual's sexual orientation may change over time, it is difficult to provide a precise and universally accepted definition of homosexuality. In general terms, homosexuality may be described as the capacity to find affection and or sexual satisfaction with someone of the same gender. Focus founder and fundamental Christian leader, James Dobson, however, simply defines homosexuality as a sin and says homosexuals can be cured in God's name (Egelko, 3/2000 p2). As one can see from these two examples alone, the definition of this lifestyle isn't focused solely on what a homosexual is, but rather how individuals feel about the way of life. In day-to-day living, the homosexual lifestyle is most likely not much different from the heterosexual or straight lifestyle. A homosexual still gets up in the morning and goes to work or to school. They still have dinner with family or friends; participate in sports, community organizations and events. And yes, they still hold stable relationships, just like a man and women would; they still go through the ups and downs of a relationship, facing the same joyous moments, and same hard times with an individual they love.

The homophobia that has spread through our country like wildfire since the outing of homosexuals became more common and acceptable when it undermined these common variables between homosexual and heterosexual couples. One of the largest differences for a homosexual is living a life of fear. Along with all of their day-to-day activities that mirror any heterosexual, they must also deal with the stress of being different and being unacceptable to the society, which they are a part of. They must know the places they are welcomed as an outwardly gay person, and the ones where they must hide their true identities. As well, they are not granted many of the rights a heterosexual takes for granted. They cannot file for taxes along with their partner, cannot receive medical benefits or health insurance under their partner's coverage, as most husband and wives do, and most essentially, they cannot create a bond of unity to express their love through a legal marriage (France, 2/2000 p2).

Marriage has been a unique part of our culture since its beginning. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines marriage as to join or unite a husband and wife. As well, many churches quote like definitions. The Catholic Church, for example, relies on Jesus' statement about a man and his wife becoming one flesh, never to be separated (Egelko, 3/2000 p1). And West Virginia Governor, Cecil Underwood, just asked the legislature to put on all marriage licenses and applications: Marriage is designed to be a loving and lifelong union between a woman and a man (Bundy, 1/2000 p1). The debate comes over whether or not these definitions are simply traditional in their wording of man and wife or if that is truly the way it is meant to be. This brings up the issue of whether religious or secular definitions should prevail and how to go about changing or amending these definitions.

If a marriage is truly a unity of two individuals in love, however, who is the final decision-maker in how far those lines can be drawn? Is it really the place of our government, or even us to tell a couple, regardless of their gender or sexuality that they may not be united legally in their love? This question, one of morality and of legality, has become a pressing issue in many states in the recent years. At the present day, only one state in America has legalized the marriage of a same-sex couple, but to only the residents of that state, Massachusetts (Swanson, 3/2000 p2). Only one man and one woman can be joined in matrimony and have their marriages recognized by the state, at least for the other 49 states in America. Same-sex couples were able to obtain marriage licenses in San Francisco, CA, and in various towns in New Mexico and New York for short intervals of time during 2004. However, none were able to register their marriages. On November 2, 2004, lawmakers in Massachusetts faced a new problem. A total of 105 lawmakers voted for the amendment to ban same-sex marriages earlier this year, four more than the 101 necessary for passage. The measure must be approved again in the coming session before it can go on to the November 2006 statewide ballot. The amendment would ban same-sex marriage, but allow gay couples to enter into civil unions (Lewis, 11/2004).

However, the latest trend in legislation is towards a ban on validating a marriage of a same-sex couple that has been legalized in another state or country. The first step, which initiated this proposition, came in Hawaii and began in 1994. Hawaii's courts have held that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples is a violation of the state's constitution (Gallagher, 6/98 p2). In 1997, gay couples in Hawaii petitioned for legal recognition and won a groundbreaking compromise: domestic partnership (Wolf, 2/98 p1). Although this is not a marriage license, it does promise a more valid partnership in the eyes of the courts and of the society for the future. At the same time, however, forty-two states have now passed bans on same-sex marriages outright.

The state of Vermont is also on the front page when it comes to the gay marriage movement. In a Vermont Supreme Court decision in December of 1999, Chief Justice Jeffrey L. Amestoy told the state legislature either to provide licenses or set up a domestic partner system extending all or most of the same rights and obligations provided by law to married partners (France, 2/2000 p1). The court's decision was a huge win for proponents of gay marriage, however, it has not granted