My Views on Same-Sex Marriages
Heterosexual married couples are entitled to legal privileges, special marriage benefits for insurance and health plans, and other types of benefits as well as societal acceptance. Homosexual married couples should be given these EXACT SAME RIGHTS. Equal treatment. In order for this to happen, gay marriages must become nationally legal. Divorce proceedings for gay married couples should also be subject to the same guidelines as when heterosexual married couples are divorced. When one spouse of a married gay couple dies, his/her widow should inherit their deceased spouse's estate, unless otherwise specified in the will of the deceased, regardless of gender.
Currently, when one member of a gay couple is in the hospital, the gay patient's partner may be denied visitation. This is sickening and wrong! Another reason why gay marriages must be legalized. TRUE LOVE IS NOT NECESSARILY GENDER-SPECIFIC.
And many people need to stop preaching that gay marriages should remain illegal because (according to them) being gay is "immoral." Just read my rebuttal in my "Gay Power" section. There is a reason for the separation of church and state! I don't see why I should be denied the right as a gay male to marry another man simply because some members of certain religions have a problem with it. Why should they be able to deny me that right?! I don't have a problem with any of them marrying someone of the opposite gender. So why should I be treated any differently?
My mom used to oppose gay marriages because, as she put it, "that's the way it's always been." Fortunately, I have since been able to change her position on the issue and obtain my mother's support. She now supports the right of gays/lesbians to wed our lovers/spouses who are of the same sex. And keep in mind, my mom is a Republican (albeit a moderate Republican)! I believe in changing the status quo when something is wrong. And it's WRONG that gay marriages are not legally recognized. Therefore, the definition of "marriage" in society must be changed to include and allow for "the legal joining or union in wedlock of any two individuals regardless of gender."
Evidently, many residents of Vermont feel the same way. Vermont has recently resolved to grant the same marital rights to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples receive and integrate such provisions into its state constitution. Hopefully, additional U.S. states will soon follow suit in Vermont's example by formulating similar referendums and eventually legalizing same-gender marriages. Personally, I'd prefer to see same-sex marriages made federally legal, applying to all 50 states. However, a gradual implementation of legalizing gay marriages across the nation would definitely be better than remaining at the status quo.
Some people argue that the definition of "marriage" should be limited to a man and a woman because if it is extended to include same-sex couples then it could also be extended to include several spouses in group marriages through polygamy. But there is a clear difference between same-sex marriages and marriages of polygamy. Same-sex marriages would involve only TWO people, be it two men or two women. However, polygamy could theoretically involve several spouses of an indefinite number, anywhere from 3 to 856 to 4,798 (or more)! Thus the legal restriction would remain that a marriage could only be limited to TWO individuals at a time, and a person must be divorced to her/his first spouse before marrying another spouse, regardless of gender. The only deviance here is that the status quo of requiring a woman and a man in order to constitute legal marriage would be expanded to allow for and include marriages of couples of the same gender. Two individuals in a marriage would still be the numerical limit.
One may then challenge me as to why we should expand the concept of marriage to include same-gender unions but not unions of polygamy. Well, I personally do not judge those who engage in polygamous extramarital relations of consent (even though I would never engage in polygamy). I have no specific personal agenda that wishes to "ban" or "restrict" the legalization of polygamy in the United States. My only concern is the legal repercussions which could result. Say, for instance, that there were 5 people in a polygamous marriage: Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D, and Person E. What if Person D wanted to divorce Person B and Person C but not Person A or Person E? But Person B wanted to remain married to all 4 of his/her spouses, while Person A wanted to divorce only Person B and remain married to everyone else? And Person C might decide he/she wants to divorce all 4 of his/her spouses? And keep in mind, other marriages could involve more than just 5 people!! What would happen when more people are added to the situation? Say that Person E wants to marry Person F and Person G, but Person B doesn't wish to marry either of them, and Person D wishes to additionally marry Person G but not Person F? How would such legalities be formally handled? Until someone who is pro-polygamy can present to me a feasible and reasonable hypothetical system of legal guidelines for polygamous marriages, I cannot and will not personally endorse such a discombobulated process.
That is why marriage should be simply limited to two spouses at a time! But I don't see why the genders of those two spouses should even be a factor?
Denmark was the first nation in the world to legalize same-sex marriages (in 1989). Since then, Norway and Sweden have also legalized gay marriages. In Canada, "common law" legislation has actually been passed, granting the same equality to homosexual partners as heterosexual partners receive. While the Canadian legislature does not "officially" recognize such equality for gays as "marriages" by legal definition, the rights and equality for homosexuals have been granted. Since Canada has taken such an innovative and long-overdue step, the United States should follow suit in legalizing gay marriages; such a leadership role would not only set the U.S. on the road to reducing anti-gay sentiment and orientationism within our own country, but would also set an example for the rest of the world, leading to gradual acceptance of homosexuality worldwide.
I have not heard ONE VALID REASON as to why gay marriages should remain illegal. Homosexuals are humans too. So why should we be denied the human right to marry someone of the same gender?
Simply holding a "committment ceremony" is not enough. We as homosexuals deserve to be equally recognized to heterosexuals through society officially supporting our legal rights as same-sex married couples. It's unjust to hold homosexual love as "inferior" to heterosexual love by maintaining a "heterosexual ideal" in society.
Coupled with the reality that homosexuals can be fired by employers or discharged from the military solely based on sexual orientation, the fact that gay marriages aren't legal is like a painful slap in the face! This basically deems that homosexuals are "second-class citizens."
Yes, of course there will be homosexual marriages-of-convenience when gay marriages are legalized. But there are currently heterosexual marriages-of-convenience, and those are legal. What's the difference?
Article 16 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights (The United Nations, December 10, 1948)
a.) Men and women of full age, without limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriages, during marriage and its dissolution.
b.) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
c.) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Society must re-evaluate the definition of what a "family" is. A family is not exclusively a man, a woman, and kids. Families are many units throughout society - - be it as small as two partners of the same gender or two partners of opposite genders, consisting of partners who love each other; or units branching out to include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, stepfamilies, foster families, and people who adopt. Familes also can be extended, including siblings' families-by-marriage and in-laws. The definition of "family" should not be commonly accepted with such traditional limitations.
I really don't see why there needs to be one penis and one vagina in a couple to recognize a legal marriage! Just because two people who enter into a marriage happen to have different genitals does not necessarily mean that there is love and commitment in their relationship. But since Americans have such freedom to marry whomever they want, this right should be granted to any two people regardless of whether or not the two people have the same or opposite genitals.
Above all, I don't see how the legalization of same-sex marriages would be violating or infringing upon the rights of heterosexuals. Men and women would still be able to be married to each other with all of the exact same rights and benefits. The only difference would be that men would legally be able to marry other men, and women would legally be able to marry other women. No one's rights would be taken away. Homosexuals and bisexuals would simply be gaining equality to heterosexuals.
It is utterly STUPID that we in the gay community cannot legally marry a lover of the same gender. THIS MUST CHANGE! Our rights as Americans need to be enforced. It should not matter that we are gay.
It's time for a change!
My Favorite Links
Dude Power Lexicon
Photo Gallery
My Gallery of Writings
Discussion Board
Take My Polls/Surveys
Sign My Guestbook
View My Guestbook
View My Old Guestbook
Get your own Free Home Page