1_bustillos

Karina Bustillos

English 1302

10 November 2000

The Revolutionary Issue of Same-Sex Marriage: Validating

Their Quality and Accepting Their Preference

Consider the word "spouse." It describes one of the richest and most meaningful relationships in our society: the loving commitment of two adults to each other. But should it apply only to men and women, or can gay and lesbians call those they love a spouse? Nowadays, the debate about same-sex marriage has caused a national and international fervor. The fight for and the resistance to legal same-sex marriage continues to rage across the United States and has become a hot topic. First, and most basically, the issue is not the yearning of marriage, but the desirability of the right to marry. It is obvious that the concept of marriage is seen as a commitment to share life, to be supportive, to be caring, and to work at intertwining two individuals' lives, but does it also relate to gay and lesbian couples who wish to solidify their relationships?

Lesbians and gay men are being denied entry to the "noble" and "sacred" institution of marriage. In "The Right to Say I Do: the Legality of Same-Sex Marriage" in Law and Psychology, Paul Royal states that even though "many gay and lesbian couples pretend to lead conventional lives within their communities, their living arrangements and sexual orientation still tends to be suspected by many" (253). Many believe two women or two men are unable to achieve this marital status because these relationships are less significant, less valuable. Donna Riley says, "the church doesn't respect gay and lesbian people because it does not respect their relationships" (qtd. in Eskridge 18). Such relationships may give the appearance of a marriage but "they can never be of the same quality of importance" (18). Some with similar viewpoints believe in civil unions but not in these marriages because a marriage is between a man and a woman. Many others believe that all homosexual activity, no matter the circumstances, is sinful and contrary to the will of God. Evelyn Martin asks (qtd. in Kurdek 559) "if we bless what God condemns, what kind of Christians are we?" Furthermore, in "Gay Marriage," Christine Pierce states "the love which unifies two homosexuals in a sexual union is sinful love which separates them from the love of God, and places them in danger of eternal damnation" (15). There are many others who have similar views and who believe favoring same-sex marriage will lead to the downfall of this country because it would encourage "perversion, immorality, and the demise of our youth" (15). In "Same-Sex Marriage," Stephen Haas and Laura Stafford state that because of all these reasons, gay and lesbian couples experience "differing degrees of social and legal discrimination" (847).

The decision to marry should belong only to the individual, not to the government or religious groups. In On the Road to Same-Sex Marriage: A Supportive Guide to Psychological, Political, and Legal Issues, Robert P. Cabajal and David W. Purcell point out that "religious institutions and the political combine to enforce the resistance to progress along the inevitable road to legally sanctioned marriages" (22). This becomes a barrier in establishing their relationships since many religious leaders believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. Because of this, they believe it is a bad policy for the state to recognize a right for gay men and lesbians to marry, since their relationships cannot procreate children and because they are a bad example to those that do have families. Pierce notes president Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as "one of the means that refuses to recognize same-sex marriages" (15). In the Washington Post, Keith Richburg comments that as things now stand in the U.S., only Vermont has gone as far to recognize "civil unions between same-sex couples." In Lesbian and Gay Marriage: Private Commitments, Public Ceremonies, Suzanne Sherman depicts how the struggle of these couples continues until they are "accepted and respected for their differences and the diversity they provide for this society" (26).

Because society understands marriage to mean a greater level of love and commitment between two people, if lesbians and gays cannot marry, then the myth that our relationships are not as meaningful as those of heterosexuals will persist. The full faith and credibility of the United States of America in recognizing and honoring the full human rights and responsibilities of every individual is also the very basis of the freedom of choice endowed to every human being. It is everyone's right to marry whomever they choose. According to Kurdek in "Relationship Outcomes and Their Predictors: Longitudinal Evidence From Heterosexual Married, Gay Cohabiting and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples," "if the institution of marriage is positive, beneficial, and works for heterosexuals, then it should work for same-sex couples" (554). Therefore, the only way to overturn the perception of same-sex relationships is to remove the barrier to marriage that now limits the freedom of every gay man and lesbian.

Nothing in the human experience is any more sacred and holy than the rights of every individual. In the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, Sandra Kopels'

article "Wedded to the Same Status Quo: Same-Sex Marriage," states "marriage has been viewed both as a fundamental right and a civil liberty" (69). Kopels believes that every citizen of the United States has the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities guaranteed under the constitution. In reality, we cannot give them a right they already have under God and the constitution. All we can do is deprive them or begin to recognize their human rights. Kopels' article in the 1998 issue explains that not only do lesbian and gay couples seek social and financial benefits, but also want "recognition as a way of validating their quality and importance" (70). Their attempts continue despite legal sanction, expense, emotional distress, and even harassment and ridicule.

With all due respect to colleagues and friends who take a different view, I believe it is time to renew the effort to overturn the existing marriage laws through both the courts and the state legislatures in order to achieve a world free from discrimination against lesbians and gay men. Cabajal and Purcell point out that "marriage for same-sex couples should be an available option-just as for opposite-sex couples and each couple should decide to exercise that option or not" (xv). Every lesbian and gay man should have the right to marry the same-sex partner of his or her choice, and the gay-rights movement should aggressively seek full legal recognition for same-sex marriages. "Legal same-sex marriage will likely be a mixed law which generally presumes in favor of every marital relationship that acts to preserve, foster, and enhance the rights of the individuals who enter into it" (70). Since marriage is both a fundamental right and a civil liberty, every citizen should have the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities under the constitution. Extending these individuals' right to marry could be accomplished by abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage that would untangle the sexiest trappings of the past.

In spite of the different premises behind the idea of "marriage," both opposite and same-sex relationships share similar interests and goals. In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim they are just like heterosexual couples since they have the same rights, goals, and purposes and promise to structure their lives similarly. According to Cabajal and Purcell, "lesbians and gay men have always formed intimate relationships and many of these families have included children" (41). Even though they cannot procreate within marriage, these individuals can still raise children the same way everyone else does. Similarly, they can also support each other financially and emotionally.

I welcome the thoughts, debates, and discussions of the individuals who disagree with me, but I am convinced that the only way to overturn the misconception of same-sex marriage is to remove the barrier that now limits the freedom of every gay man and lesbian. That means that the right to marry be extended to everyone disregarding sexual preference. Justice for gay men and lesbians will be achieved only when they are accepted and supported in this society despite their difference from the dominant culture and the choices they make regarding their relationships. According to Cabajal and Purcell, "the history of the struggle for gay and lesbian civil rights shows that opinions and attitudes can be changed with accurate information that highlights inherent fairness" (194). If the laws changed tomorrow and gay men and lesbians were allowed to marry, many would find the incentive to continue this progressive movement of liberating themselves and become respected and accepted despite their differences and the diversity they provide to society.

Sources Cited

Cabajal, Robert P., and David W. Purcell. On The Road to Same-Sex Marriage: A

Supportive Guide to Psychological, Political, and Legal Issues. San Francisco: Josey

Bass Inc., 1998.

Eskridge, William N. Jr. The Case For Same-Sex Marriage; From Sexual Liberty to

Civilized Commitment. New York: The Free Press, 1996.

Ferdinand, Pamela. "Same-Sex Couples Take Vows as Law Takes Effect." Washington Post

2 July 2000: A03.

Haas, Stephen, and Laura Stafford. "Same-Sex Marriage." Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships 15.6 (Dec. 1998): 846-858.

Kopels, Sandra. "Wedded to the Status Quo: Same-Sex Marriage." Journal of Gay and

Lesbian Social Services 8.3 (1998): 69-81.

Kurdek, Laurence A. "Relationship Outcomes and Their Predictors: Longitudinal Evidence from

Heterosexual married, Gay Cohabiting and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples. Journal of

Marriage & the Family 60.3 (Aug. 1998): 553-568.

Meissner, Dirk. "Same-Sex Marriage Challenges in Works." The Canadian Press 21 July

2000. <http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSLaw0007/20_samesex.html>.

Pierce, Christine. "Gay Marriage." Journal of Social Philosophy 26.2 (Fall 1995): 5-16.

Richburg, Keith B. "Dutch-Legalize Same-Sex Marriage." Washington Post 13 Sept. 2000:

A2.

Royal, Paul. "The Right to Say I Do: the Legality of Same-Sex Marriage." Law & Psychology

20 (1996): 245-261.

Sherman, Suzanne. Lesbian and Gay Marriage; Private Commitments, Public Ceremonies.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.









			Karina Bustillos English 1302 10 November 2000 The Revolutionary Issue of Same-Sex Marriage: Validating Their Quality and Accepting Their Preference Consider the word "spouse." It describes one of the richest and most meaningful relationships in our society: the loving commitment of two adults to each other. But should it apply only to men and women, or can gay and lesbians call those they love a spouse? Nowadays, the debate about same-sex marriage has caused a national and international fervor. The fight for and the resistance to legal same-sex marriage continues to rage across the United States and has become a hot topic. First, and most basically, the issue is not the yearning of marriage, but the desirability of the right to marry. It is obvious that the concept of marriage is seen as a commitment to share life, to be supportive, to be caring, and to work at intertwining two individuals' lives, but does it also relate to gay and lesbian couples who wish to solidify their relationships? Lesbians and gay men are being denied entry to the "noble" and "sacred" institution of marriage. In "The Right to Say I Do: the Legality of Same-Sex Marriage" in Law and Psychology, Paul Royal states that even though "many gay and lesbian couples pretend to lead conventional lives within their communities, their living arrangements and sexual orientation still tends to be suspected by many" (253). Many believe two women or two men are unable to achieve this marital status because these relationships are less significant, less valuable. Donna Riley says, "the church doesn't respect gay and lesbian people because it does not respect their relationships" (qtd. in Eskridge 18). Such relationships may give the appearance of a marriage but "they can never be of the same quality of importance" (18). Some with similar viewpoints believe in civil unions but not in these marriages because a marriage is between a man and a woman. Many others believe that all homosexual activity, no matter the circumstances, is sinful and contrary to the will of God. Evelyn Martin asks (qtd. in Kurdek 559) "if we bless what God condemns, what kind of Christians are we?" Furthermore, in "Gay Marriage," Christine Pierce states "the love which unifies two homosexuals in a sexual union is sinful love which separates them from the love of God, and places them in danger of eternal damnation" (15). There are many others who have similar views and who believe favoring same-sex marriage will lead to the downfall of this country because it would encourage "perversion, immorality, and the demise of our youth" (15). In "Same-Sex Marriage," Stephen Haas and Laura Stafford state that because of all these reasons, gay and lesbian couples experience "differing degrees of social and legal discrimination" (847). The decision to marry should belong only to the individual, not to the government or religious groups. In On the Road to Same-Sex Marriage: A Supportive Guide to Psychological, Political, and Legal Issues, Robert P. Cabajal and David W. Purcell point out that "religious institutions and the political combine to enforce the resistance to progress along the inevitable road to legally sanctioned marriages" (22). This becomes a barrier in establishing their relationships since many religious leaders believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. Because of this, they believe it is a bad policy for the state to recognize a right for gay men and lesbians to marry, since their relationships cannot procreate children and because they are a bad example to those that do have families. Pierce notes president Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as "one of the means that refuses to recognize same-sex marriages" (15). In the Washington Post, Keith Richburg comments that as things now stand in the U.S., only Vermont has gone as far to recognize "civil unions between same-sex couples." In Lesbian and Gay Marriage: Private Commitments, Public Ceremonies, Suzanne Sherman depicts how the struggle of these couples continues until they are "accepted and respected for their differences and the diversity they provide for this society" (26). Because society understands marriage to mean a greater level of love and commitment between two people, if lesbians and gays cannot marry, then the myth that our relationships are not as meaningful as those of heterosexuals will persist. The full faith and credibility of the United States of America in recognizing and honoring the full human rights and responsibilities of every individual is also the very basis of the freedom of choice endowed to every human being. It is everyone's right to marry whomever they choose. According to Kurdek in "Relationship Outcomes and Their Predictors: Longitudinal Evidence From Heterosexual Married, Gay Cohabiting and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples," "if the institution of marriage is positive, beneficial, and works for heterosexuals, then it should work for same-sex couples" (554). Therefore, the only way to overturn the perception of same-sex relationships is to remove the barrier to marriage that now limits the freedom of every gay man and lesbian. Nothing in the human experience is any more sacred and holy than the rights of every individual. In the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, Sandra Kopels' article "Wedded to the Same Status Quo: Same-Sex Marriage," states "marriage has been viewed both as a fundamental right and a civil liberty" (69). Kopels believes that every citizen of the United States has the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities guaranteed under the constitution. In reality, we cannot give them a right they already have under God and the constitution. All we can do is deprive them or begin to recognize their human rights. Kopels' article in the 1998 issue explains that not only do lesbian and gay couples seek social and financial benefits, but also want "recognition as a way of validating their quality and importance" (70). Their attempts continue despite legal sanction, expense, emotional distress, and even harassment and ridicule. With all due respect to colleagues and friends who take a different view, I believe it is time to renew the effort to overturn the existing marriage laws through both the courts and the state legislatures in order to achieve a world free from discrimination against lesbians and gay men. Cabajal and Purcell point out that "marriage for same-sex couples should be an available option-just as for opposite-sex couples and each couple should decide to exercise that option or not" (xv). Every lesbian and gay man should have the right to marry the same-sex partner of his or her choice, and the gay-rights movement should aggressively seek full legal recognition for same-sex marriages. "Legal same-sex marriage will likely be a mixed law which generally presumes in favor of every marital relationship that acts to preserve, foster, and enhance the rights of the individuals who enter into it" (70). Since marriage is both a fundamental right and a civil liberty, every citizen should have the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities under the constitution. Extending these individuals' right to marry could be accomplished by abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage that would untangle the sexiest trappings of the past. In spite of the different premises behind the idea of "marriage," both opposite and same-sex relationships share similar interests and goals. In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim they are just like heterosexual couples since they have the same rights, goals, and purposes and promise to structure their lives similarly. According to Cabajal and Purcell, "lesbians and gay men have always formed intimate relationships and many of these families have included children" (41). Even though they cannot procreate within marriage, these individuals can still raise children the same way everyone else does. Similarly, they can also support each other financially and emotionally. I welcome the thoughts, debates, and discussions of the individuals who disagree with me, but I am convinced that the only way to overturn the misconception of same-sex marriage is to remove the barrier that now limits the freedom of every gay man and lesbian. That means that the right to marry be extended to everyone disregarding sexual preference. Justice for gay men and lesbians will be achieved only when they are accepted and supported in this society despite their difference from the dominant culture and the choices they make regarding their relationships. According to Cabajal and Purcell, "the history of the struggle for gay and lesbian civil rights shows that opinions and attitudes can be changed with accurate information that highlights inherent fairness" (194). If the laws changed tomorrow and gay men and lesbians were allowed to marry, many would find the incentive to continue this progressive movement of liberating themselves and become respected and accepted despite their differences and the diversity they provide to society. Sources Cited Cabajal, Robert P., and David W. Purcell. On The Road to Same-Sex Marriage: A Supportive Guide to Psychological, Political, and Legal Issues. San Francisco: Josey Bass Inc., 1998. Eskridge, William N. Jr. The Case For Same-Sex Marriage; From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment. New York: The Free Press, 1996. Ferdinand, Pamela. "Same-Sex Couples Take Vows as Law Takes Effect." Washington Post 2 July 2000: A03. Haas, Stephen, and Laura Stafford. "Same-Sex Marriage." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 15.6 (Dec. 1998): 846-858. Kopels, Sandra. "Wedded to the Status Quo: Same-Sex Marriage." Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 8.3 (1998): 69-81. Kurdek, Laurence A. "Relationship Outcomes and Their Predictors: Longitudinal Evidence from Heterosexual married, Gay Cohabiting and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples. Journal of Marriage & the Family 60.3 (Aug. 1998): 553-568. Meissner, Dirk. "Same-Sex Marriage Challenges in Works." The Canadian Press 21 July 2000. <http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSLaw0007/20_samesex.html>. Pierce, Christine. "Gay Marriage." Journal of Social Philosophy 26.2 (Fall 1995): 5-16. Richburg, Keith B. "Dutch-Legalize Same-Sex Marriage." Washington Post 13 Sept. 2000: A2. Royal, Paul. "The Right to Say I Do: the Legality of Same-Sex Marriage." Law & Psychology 20 (1996): 245-261. Sherman, Suzanne. Lesbian and Gay Marriage; Private Commitments, Public Ceremonies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.