Marriagebetween personalities of the same sex whether through religioussetting or civil ceremonies is referred as either same-sex marriageor gay marriage (Powell, Quadlin, & Pizmony-Levy, 2015). In allAmerican states, same-sex marriage is legalized. According to a courtruling dated June 26, 2015, denying marriage licenses to couples ofthe same sex, failure to recognize their marriage ceremonies wasunconstitutional, and violation of the equal protection act in the15th amendment of the American constitution. In the late 20thcentury, human rights movement worked towards gaining civil marriageprivileges and the advantages from the same-sex couple in the UnitedStates. Same-sex marriage had considerably grown by the 21st centurywhen several states around the globe initiated the legalization ofsuch unions. For instance, same-sex couples in the USA werefacilitated with public support, and the majority of residentssupported the legalization by the year 2011. Although there wasmassive growth of gay marriages, other states rose against thelegalization to the extent that they passed bans against same-gendermarriage by referendums and legislature. In a case between Good Ridgevs. the public health department, Massachusetts became the firstAmerican state to implement the legalization of gay marriage in 2004.Since then, homosexual unions have continued to raise multipleopinions within the public with some supporting while others opposethe legalization of same-sex marriage. The current paper focuses onthe evaluation, summarizing and consideration of overall perceptiveon same-sex marriage based on evidence from peer reviewed studies.
of the Article on Same-Gender Marriages
Theruling by Hawaii Supreme Court stated that denying same-sex marriagewas equivalent to discrimination against gender. The possibilitiesthat lesbians and gays would be allowed to marry in Hawaii and theirmarriage be recognized in the state created diverse opinions amongconservatives and those fighting for gay rights. According to theRoman Catholic Church, most of the American people including socialand religious leaders became the major critics of same gendermarriage (Powell, Quadlin, & Pizmony-Levy, 2015). They statedthat allowing marital recognition to both gays and lesbians woulddestroy the meaning of marriage that in their view aimed atreproduction. The critics argued that the government should havepolicies and laws that maintain the society’s most important valuesin the way that it was initially designed to indicate a union betweena male and a female. The majority of Americans find the act of gaysand lesbianism as immoral, and they do not like to be associated withthe activities related to such people.
Themodern culture has already assaulted what for many years have beentermed as traditional family values, and the state should ensure thatmarital grounds are restored. According to advocates for gay rights,these unions should focus on love and commitment between twoindividuals regardless of their social, religious, gender or sexualorientation (Powell, Quadlin, & Pizmony-Levy, 2015). Further,they added that providing lesbians and gay couples with equal legalrights similar to those entitled to people interested with members ofthe opposite sex have no negative impact on both the society and theheterosexuals. Gay rights advocates accentuate that these statesplace many legal and economic advantages to heterosexuals togetherwith their recognized families of which these rights are denied tohomosexuals. According to the authors, families should be definedbased on people who care deeply about one another as opposed to theuse of traditional and restrictive descriptive terms. Progressively,they point out the idea that governments should motivate anyrelationship and without prejudicing those of same sex gender.
Sincethere exist controversial elements on same-sex marriage issues thatrange from religious beliefs, social backgrounds, and morality, thereshould be a precise definition of love and family structures in thesociety to avoid same gender marriage conflicts (Powell, Quadlin, &Pizmony-Levy, 2015). The state should stand in a neutral position toensure that it enforces equality among homosexuals and heterosexuals.The courts should also recognize same-sex marriage rights despite thefact that majority of Americans refer them as immoral. Moreover, toensure continuity of families from homosexuals, the government shouldallow them to adopt and raise children without any restriction.
Criticsof same-sex marriage have blamed homosexuality for threatening thevalues upheld in families and society. The beliefs and behaviorstermed as sexual revolution has given birth to some types of livingpatterns that stand out from traditional family models (Powell,Quadlin, & Pizmony-Levy, 2015). The model that outlines thefather as the only provider to his wife and children have beensignificantly changed to an up-blended family that includes divorcedparents, unmarried, and married couples with or without children.Despite the original meaning of a family, the community has continuedto accept and tolerate other family structures such as homosexualfamily patterns and the American justice system has agreed oncontemporary relationships and marriages that were traditionallyperceived as outlawed. These current changes play a significant rolein the growth of vocal gay advocates through which both gays andlesbians have utilized in calling upon public recognition andtolerance of their sex relationships.
Asgays rights activist become politically popular, they started aimingat areas in which they felt that the society was hostile anddiscriminative to homosexuals. In the article, Social Currents, theauthors stated that gay activists are repeatedly making headlines bychallenging traditional and restrictive policies that targethomosexuals through religious and sexual backgrounds. Over time,private investors have guaranteed same-sex partners some economicadvantage that had initially extended to married couples (Powell,Quadlin, & Pizmony-Levy, 2015). Businesses offered benefits suchas illness leave, health insurance, and bereavement to same-sexpartners who were committed to their work. Currently, workingopportunities are filled with local partnerships and heterosexualcouples while others extend advantages only to same-gender coupleswhose benefits are not automatically granted by the law. On furtheranalysis, the government should formulate policies that cover thehealth and life insurance benefits across the religion, sexualdiversity and family patterns such as those in homosexual householdsto provide equality to the citizens.
Evaluationof the Article
Thegovernment intervention entails the only measure that can validatewhether the civil marriage can receive the extended benefits or notdespite some religious resistance. This should occur throughadvantages such as income tax deductions, family health carecoverage, inheritance rights and the rights to hold medical attentionfor one another in the case of emergencies. The constitutional lawsblocking same gender marriage are only held in the court ruling, andif the tribunal shows a compelling interest, it results to imposing aban. Besides, the court continues to term marriage as a union betweena man and a woman, and the amendment would be regarded as a symbol oflegislature opposing same-gender marriages (Powell, Quadlin, &Pizmony-Levy, 2015). Critics to the same-sex union have argued thatthe courts have altered the meaning of marriage and creatednon-existing rights. Gay activists have continued to stress onspecific differences between the common perspective of marriage thatoutline legal frameworks and economic relations between twoindividuals and the religious view of marriage which is mostlyrestricted to cultural diversity and moral traditions. In the privatesector, religious rulers can set standards that involve gay rightsbut represent a larger population. The state should remain unbiasedregardless of its administrative aspects and common policies.
PersonalPerspectives and Conclusion
Currently,the issue of same gender restrictions has led to the depletion ofbasic human rights to the gay community as well as promotedheterosexism through branding gays as either inferior or second classcitizens. These situations have increased stigmatization of same-sexmarriage in the society. It is from a personal perspective that everymember of the community should be granted an equal opportunity tointeract, establish a relationship and formulate any familystructures within their ability. Besides, the state should focus onits role in protecting the rights of children in families, and sincesame gender marriages do not have biological children, there is nomeaning for the government to uphold homosexual relationships. On theother hand, religious authorities should support eradication ratherthan oppose same-sex marriage to enable initial family stabilizationwhere a father is the breadwinner of the household. Despite thecontroversy between the gays and their opponents on values thatinclude tolerance, individuals’ civil rights have to be protected,and the government should ensure equal treatment of all citizens asstated in the constitution. Finally, same-sex marriages andheterosexuals should enjoy their fundamental rights ranging fromeducation, health and life insurances to social interactions,dimensional sexual behaviors, and religious beliefs.
Powell, B.,Quadlin, N. Y., & Pizmony-Levy, O. (2015). PublicOpinion, the Courts, and Same-sex Marriage. SocialCurrents, 2(1),3-12. Doi: 10.1177/2329496514562964
No related posts.