Relationships & Family >
Gay & Lesbian
RSS FeedShould gays and lesbians be allowed civil unions but not marriage?
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to Favorites
Contact this writerYes they should be allowed this for three main reasons.
1. The term marriage is synonymous with reproduction as a definite purpose. That has been the main reason for people getting hitched and sharing a life together down the centuries. That reason might have lost emphasis over the years but it is still acknowledged as the heart of marriage and long-term relations. Marriage has always been a religious act ever since the Church took it over in the 12th century. It means that the ceremony itself has been indicative of the symbol of love and affection between two people and their desire to procreate and continue our species.
2. A gay couple might not love each other any differently than a heterosexual couple, but they cannot reproduce anything. In fact, left up to gay couples, our species would die out within a generation. When one chooses a lifestyle which goes against the natural order of continuing our world, and adding to it, then the same rules cannot be applied in exact measure. Without doubt, gay people also needed a public affirmation ceremony to show that they too share commitment, loyalty and love, but that cannot be called a marriage, in every sense of the word, because there will be no unaided reproduction. A civil union is apt in their case because it is a civil partnership, not a religious one which adheres to religious teachings around both genders.
3. Gays cannot have it both ways. They cannot insist on being acknowledged as different from the rest of most of society in their sexuality, yet want all the trimmings etc which goes with being heterosexual. Anything new in society carries new rules, new accessories, a new order of seeing and perceiving. It s inevitable that there will be new untried approaches to how gays are treated, with lots of trial and error, until what feels comfortable by all sections of society is accepted. Moreover, gays can't be at pains to point out their sexual difference and expect to be treated as such, yet be heterosexual in their provisions.
In simple terms, a marriage is for a heterosexual couple. Gays are not heterosexual. It stands to reason that something else needs to be introduced which suits gays and their situation and is equally acceptable to them. I think a civil union is a very good start because it has full legal backing. It means gays and their relationships can no longer be ignored or treated as invisible and it also lays the foundation for other gradual developments which are both suitable to the gay community and accepted by the majority.
Top "Yes" articles on:
Should gays and lesbians be allowed civil unions but not marriage?Add your voice
Know something about Should gays and lesbians be allowed civil unions but not marriage?? We want to hear your view. Write now!
The problem with Civil Unions for gay & lesbian couples is that it sounds like a great idea in theory, but in reality civilly united couples are still not getting the same rights and recognition that married heterosexual couples do.
In New Jersey, where same-sex couples are granted civil unions that are supposed to confer all the statewide legal rights of marriage, many couples are finding out that their employers are not honoring their union.
In one specific case (quoted from an Advocate News article posted on Gay.com, April 16, 2007):
[Jennifer Bonfilio, whose partner is an employee at New Jersey Carpenters Funds, is planning to enter into a civil union and said the company won't extend health benefits to her.
"I called to ask if they were going to be honoring that law and providing me with the same coverage that they would any married couple, and I was told no," Bonfilio said.
"The woman on the phone actually said to me: 'We do not have to obey New Jersey law.'"]
Another article I read, also posted on Gay.com on July 9, 2007, said that:
[United Parcel Service is the latest firm to deny health care coverage to civil-union partners in New Jersey, Newark's Star-Ledger newspaper reported.
Although the company gives employee partner benefits to married gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts, it denies coverage to their New Jersey counterparts because state law there does not call them "spouses."]
I could surf the web for days and I'm sure I'd find dozens, if not hundreds, of other cases in which companies are using legal loopholes and terminology to skirt around the law and deny gay and lesbian couples their full legal rights.
Not only are civil unions a separate but unequal substitute for the full legal rights of marriage, but the limited rights they provide only extend as far as the state line. If one partner living in New Jersey works for a company in nearby Delaware, Pennsylvania, or New York then there is no legal reason that any of those states have to honor their civil union. And, even worse than the medical benefits problem, is the fact that if said partner gets into a car accident on their way to or from work, then it's likely they would be taken to a nearby out-of-state hospital and their partner would lose the right to make medical decisions for them if they're incapacitated. In some hospitals they could even be prevented from seeing their legal spouse.
Changing a few words around seems like an easy way to offer rights to the gay and lesbian community without incurring the wrath of Christian fundamentalists, conservatives, and other opponents of gay marriage. But, in reality, it's like throwing a dog a bone to stop them from barking. It will placate everyone for a little while, but it never solves the underlying problem.
The real problem is that gay marriage needs to be dealt with on a national level. By dropping it in the laps of the states to make their own laws, the United States government despicably skirted the issue and created this continually changing landscape of loose interpretation and shaky legality in which gay unions are subject to different rights and regulations depending on their location.
It would ALMOST be better for gays and lesbians to not have any martial rights at all than to have a shifting illusion of them. I have to admit that state-issued civil unions are better than nothing, but the more people that buy into the wordplay that separates them from marriage, the longer it's going to take for gays and lesbians to get true equal rights.
Top "No" articles on:
Should gays and lesbians be allowed civil unions but not marriage?-
1 of 48
by Tony Smith
The problem with Civil Unions for gay & lesbian couples is that it sounds like a great idea in theory, but in reality...read more
-
2 of 48
The United States Declaration of Independence, penned largely by American founding father Thomas Jefferson, states th...read more
Add your voice
Know something about Should gays and lesbians be allowed civil unions but not marriage?? We want to hear your view. Write now!
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Gay & Lesbian
- Do gay relationships place too much importance on sex?
- Can insulting words like "fag" ever be used in a way that is not negative?
- Should the right to create laws on gay marriage reside at the state level or the federal level?
- Marriage should be a sacred institution between only a woman and a man
- Should homosexuals receive all the rights and benefits of marriage?
