Relationships & Family >
Gay & Lesbian Issues
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould gays and lesbians be allowed civil unions but not marriage?
Results so far:
| Yes | 45% | 539 votes | Total: 1190 votes | |
| No | 55% | 651 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesYes, gays and lesbians should be allowed civil unions but when it actually comes to marriage I have to say no. As far as I'm concerned gays and lesbians can unite in civil unions with all of the same benefits of marriage, the only exception being the actual term married.' Okay, why? And if you're allowing gays and lesbians the same benefits as married couples what real difference does it make? To understand that we first have to explore what marriage really is and I don't just mean in the biblical sense. Notice I said what marriage is, not how it is defined and while it might appear they one of the same when you really get down to it they're not.
In the United States marriage is both a legal contract and a religious promise, it's why most of us are married with some form of religious overtone and why Donald Trump get a prenup. Admittedly some couples are married without any religious theme, maybe through a court house or Justice of the Peace. We call these couples married because our culture never had a common term for the strictly legal aspect until recently with Civil Unions. Now that we can see marriage, for the most part, is a two part deal we can turn our attention to actually defining it. Even here we might be jumping the gun a little, after all who gets to define marriage, our government or our church?
I'm sure we've all seen enough lawyer shows on television to be somewhat familiar with the term legal precedent. Basically something that has happened in the past that guides the decisions of the present. To be fair there are different kinds or precedent, some that have to be considered before making a judgement but don't necessarily mandate the precedent must be abided by. And there are binding precedents that are just that, binding or mandatory, such as rulings of the Supreme Court that must be followed by all lower courts. This is where who gets to decide the definition of marriage gets a little tricky and ties itself in a knot. The teachers of religious doctrine had defined marriage millennia before the formation of this country and as far as I know, no religious doctrin defines marriage between members of the same sex. Understanding that I'm no expert but I'm fairly certain that throughout human history marriage has always been under the purview of the religious communities. Where the legal aspects of marriage first came to pass I'm not sure but I'm thinking it was after the formation of this county. Even if this isn't the case as a newly formed country we merely adopted the religious definition of one man and one woman as it has been ingrained into human culture and failed to define it in any other way. Now we shift gears to the twenty-first Century.
I'm sure most of us are familiar with the term about the separation of church and state, a phrase derived from the First Amendment of the Bill of Right. In this case the applicable point is the Government cannot engage in the affairs of religious organizations. Because of this non-interference clause our government cannot mandate the Church to redefine what they have already defined as marriage. As they (the Government) failed to define marriage during the creation of this country and the establishment of Laws, the definition as prescribed by religious doctrine is protected from redefinition by the First Amendment.
So as it stands the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman, defined by the Church before the creation of this country, and protected by our government through the First Amendment. To be fair, had religious doctrine included gay marriage in their doctrine then perhaps the definition of marriage would then be the union of one human to another. In this case the opposite would also be true in that the Government could not ban gay marriage in the religious sense, at most it could only fail to recognize it as a civil union. So, as man of faith I have to say no to gay marriage. But as a human being and a firm believer in individual rights and freedoms, I say yes to civil unions with all of the rights and privileges thereof.
Learn more about this author, R. M. Gardner.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
There is growing support for allowing gay men and lesbians to file quasi-marriage licenses distinguished as civil unions. Those who support the concept are those who would otherwise deny these people marriage licenses, except they are losing court cases. It lacks the integrity of equality because it is "separate but equal." Denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses, but allowing civil unions, makes as much sense as requiring different building permits, deeds, or any other recorded documents for the same reason.
Marriage licenses, it is often contended, are intended for the sanctity of family, and to give children legitimacy. These licenses are easily dissolved, and are occasionally later found to be filed fraudulently. Marriage licenses are subject to challenge for many reasons. There is no limit to the number of marriage licenses may be legitimately filed by any one person. Fertility is not required to file marriage licenses.
Marriage is sanctioned, not sanctified, through the license.
The result is Caesar will sanction a marriage in which the couple's two bastard children serve in the ceremony, while across town a gay man lies dying in ICU without the comfort of his longtime mate who is not family so is not allowed in - because Caesar would not sanction them family.
Homosexual couples have begun fighting in court for the right to marry. They have been winning many of these cases, particularly in states that have equal protection clauses in the state Constitution. It is, after all, fairly simple to prove that issuing license if one person is male and one person is female, but denying license because one person is male or one person is female, is gender discrimination.
The term "civil union" is both indignant and laughable. It is different to please society, but exactly the same to please gays and lesbians. What a concept!
There is no reason for lesbians and gays to settle for civil unions while prevailing in court cases deciding marriage licenses must be issued to same-sex couples, as in Massachusetts, and that the licenses are valid elsewhere, as in New York. Four states now license civil unions but not marriages. Though the opposition to same-sex marriage is still loud, more and more people, especially young people, simply do not care. Gays and lesbians are not perceived as the threats to society like they once were.
With four states recognizing civil unions, and only one issuing marriage licenses, it seems the trend is toward civil union licenses. All of this is relatively new, but the newest is the decision by a New York judge that a gay couple has the right to dissolve its license issued in Massachusetts despite that New York does not otherwise recognize such licenses. As this all ages, states that passed laws to not recognize gay licenses issued in other states will hear cases on divorces and estates. It seems a certainty that someone in a state that issues both licenses will get both challenging bigamy, or obtaining benefits through both.
A few short years ago, the only people who recognized same-sex marriages were many churches, many couples, and many friends and relatives of those couples. Now one state does, four have made concessions, and another has made a landmark decision. States may as well begin recognizing and sanctioning same-sex marriages legislatively to beat the rush to do it after judicial decisions.
Those who feel they or their marriages are threatened by issuing similar licenses to same-sex couples need not fret. It will not cause accidental homosexual desires in a person, nor will it increase the likelihood a person wonders if he or she married the right person. Marriages are in the hearts, homes, and heads of the couples, or the true marriage does not exist. The paperwork means very little except when there is divorce, illness, or death. Then it is quite important.
If that is not sufficient to ease the minds of those who oppose it, then hopefully they can take solace that time passes. There was a day when it was inconceivable that citizens would pay fees to own dogs, but today it is simply accepted as normal by society. That does not mean that those who were appalled changed their minds. They have died because time passes. They are no longer troubled by it.
Our time to be appalled at the concept of same-sex marriages is limited. It seems like a waste of that time to spend it that way.
Learn more about this author, Tom Koecke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Gay & Lesbian Issues
- Should the right to create laws on gay marriage reside at the state level or the federal level?
- Should bisexuals be considered homosexuals?
- Should there be LGBT exclusive schools for kids?
- Sexual orientation: Does everyone have latent bisexual desires?
- Have gays and lesbians been given too many rights?
