 |
Protecting the Civil Liberties of Homosexual
Couples The protection of basic human rights has had an integral part in sustaining our nation's freedom. Recently, a human rights issue has been raised that has divided our country in two. America is asking, "Should we extend the rights and privileges of marriage to include homosexual couples?" I, along with approximately half the population, believe that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to be given the legal protection that marriage provides. I believe that denying homosexuals the right to marry would be a violation of civil liberties and would defy what America was founded upon: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are several issues that need to be evaluated when considering this topic. The obvious one is whether granting marriage rights to homosexuals will jeopardize the sanctity of marriage. Another is whether the government has the right to interfere in the lives of Americans. We should also consider the fact that if Congress were to add an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage (as President Bush would like to see happen), it would be the first amendment since the repealed 18th amendment's prohibition on alcohol, to take away - rather than grant - rights to Americans. Some people are in support of granting civil unions, rather than marriages, to homosexual couples. This is a sympathetic undertaking, but it does not adequately protect a homosexual couple. A civil union is "a voluntary union for life (or until divorce) of adult parties of the same sex." Most states do not recognize civil unions and therefore do not offer the rights that married couples have. President Bush announced on Feb. 24 that he wished to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman. Bush said that we must protect "the most enduring human institution." Referring to the marriages being performed in New Mexico and San Francisco, Bush said that "some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage." Right now, the power to distribute and recognize marriage licenses is given to the states, but the President wants that power to be given to the national government. The President then supported the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 by saying, "My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress." The Defense of Marriage Act grants the power to the individual states to recognize or grant marriages to same sex couples. Although it does give homosexuals a way to enter into a marriage or civil union, each state does not have to recognize their rights. So, if a homosexual couple was married in San Francisco, Calif., their marriage would not be legally acknowledged in other states like Virginia. As you can see, this still restricts essential civil rights to homosexuals. The division of beliefs that this country has encountered is even present within the President's own administration. Vice President Cheney said that he believed that people should be able to engage in any relationship that they see fit. He also said this wasn't a federal issue. John Kerry and President Bush, however, both have similar opinions on the issue. According to Time Magazine, "[t]hey both oppose gay marriage and would oppose extending the 1,138 federal rights and privileges to gay couples, but support the right of states to grant civil unions." Conversely, Kerry is opposed to making a federal amendment outlawing gay marriage and believes this is an issue for states to decide. Many people are calling the President's statements a "wedge issue to divide the American people" before his re-election campaign. Christopher E. Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU, criticized Bush for using this issue to score political points with conservatives. In the United States, there are 1,138 rights and privileges given to married couples. These include visitation rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse if they are incapacitated and the right to pass on tax free money to a spouse after the other is deceased. Many of the rights are in relation to government aid like Social Security and Medicaid, or they are regarding taxes on inheritances. Homosexuals are not entitled to these rights, even if they have a civil union. We should not refuse these rights to a couple simply because they are of the same sex. Even if you do not agree with homosexuality, it would be wrong to say that any person should not be able to share the basic rights avowed by marriage with a loved one. Many people are against the idea of gay's being able to marry, because marriage is an institution for having children. If this were true, then any married couple that chooses not to or is not able to have children should not be considered a legitimate marriage. People against gay marriages argue that because gays cannot have children, they should not be allowed to enter into the bonds of holy matrimony. It is not fair to say to every married couple that they must have children in order to validate their marriage. Another anti-marriage argument is that homosexual couples cannot properly raise children. Some may argue that children need two opposite sex parents in order to have a normal upbringing. In September 1996, there was a trial in Hawaii involving legalization of gay marriages and if it was a violation of the state constitution. The defenses' main argument was that raising a child in a homosexual household would be a punishment for the child, because it would encounter homophobia. They also argued that marriage is for procreation. The plaintiffs argued that homosexual couples have the same ability to love and raise a child as well as heterosexual couples. Also they argued that the full benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples' receive are not contingent on the ability of the couple to procreate and raise children. There are many heterosexual married couples that do not have their own children. Denying a homosexual couple the right to marry because they cannot or do not want children would be hypocritical. The case has still not been resolved, but it has spawned several responses and studies which have since shown that children of homosexual couples are no different than their heterosexual counterparts. The country's divorce rate is at an all time high, and this means that children of separated parents are more often than not being raised by a single parent. These children do not always have both genders involved with their up-bringing. Also this negates the belief that every child without two parents is raised socially inept. They are brought up as normally functioning members of our country. Many people are afraid that this attempt to redefine marriage will demolish the institution of marriage. How can people say that the sanctity of marriage is doomed if gays are allowed to marry, when the divorce rate is at almost 50 percent? Why are people accepting of outrageously short celebrity marriages and opposed to a long-term, loving homosexual relationship? It is simply hypocritical to say that the sanctity of marriage would be in jeopardy with the allowance of gay marriages, considering the fact that most of the country's heterosexual couples cannot respect the bonds of matrimony. Today everybody enters into marriage with the expectation that they have a 50 percent chance of making it last. The sanctity of marriage was not at risk before the issue of gay marriage was raised; it was at risk when Americans forgot the meaning of "until death do us part". In a survey taken of students on the Radford University campus, approximately 80 percent of the people surveyed said that they do not support President Bush's plan for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Almost 75 percent said that they supported the right of same sex couples to get married, and about 90 percent thought that the government should not have the right to define and enforce marriage laws. This shows that many college students have a more tolerant attitude towards homosexuality than most adults. The opinions of many churches and religious organizations have not been overlooked on this issue. Although some religious sects support gay marriage, the strongest opposition has come mostly from these two groups. However, it is important to separate religion from politics on matters like this. Not all Americans are religious, and most people do not agree with discriminating because of sexual orientation. I believe that tolerance should be promoted in religion instead of the narrow-minded views against gays that some religions have adopted. We were all created equal and no one is more deserving than another when it comes to civil rights. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 594,301 same sex partner households reported. This is a large group of Americans, many of whom are our friends, family members and neighbors. As an open-minded person and a citizen concerned for the rights of gays in America, I believe that we must not discriminate against homosexuals. They are people who deserve to be treated with the same respect as anyone else. Remember that citizens of this country entitled to certain unalienable rights. The protection of these rights is essential to keep the United States prosperous and free.
Responses: Refresh frame to view latest entries. Name: Travis Name: Zoe Comments: Name: Mike Flick Comments: |
