Thursday, December 6, 2007

Gay Rights Mediation Paper

Kaycie Goding
English 103
Adam Million
Gay Rights
One of the major political issues today would overwhelmingly be gay rights. Although many people will agree that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be granted equal rights, they are hesitant to allow gays the right of marriage and the right of adoption. This hesitation is completely understandable as marriage has always been culturally accepted as being between one man and one woman. Not only is it our culture to deny gay marriage, but it is also clearly stated in the Bible that marriage is not between two people of the same sex. The implications from Genesis 2:24 is that marriage should be between “one woman for one man for one lifetime (Bible).” People’s hesitation concerning gay adoption stems from these same cultural ideas. To grow up to be well-balanced adults, children need role models of both sexes. Also, some may argue that children raised by gay parents are offered only one partnership model and are therefore more likely to be gay (Sullivan). However, in the year 2007, some of these attitudes towards gay rights are a little outdated, and some changes need to be made.
Because there are so many legal and economic benefits that come along with tying the knot, denying homosexuals the right of marriage also denies them many other rights enjoyed by straight married couples. For example, marriage gives couples the status of next-to-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to make his or her own decision; allows joint insurance policies including home, car, and health insurance; and ensures automatic inheritance in the absence of a will (“Legal and Economic Benefits of Marriage”). By prohibiting gays from marrying, you are unjustly limiting these many other rights for them. It is evident that this is unfair, yet the idea of same-sex marriage is still a controversial topic. People are not yet ready to justify a complete change in the definition of marriage as we know it.
However, there is an alternative to marriage that would not change the sacred union in the eyes of the church. This alternate option would be a civil union, which is “a legally recognized and voluntary union of adult parties of the same sex” (Dictionary). Civil unions or domestic partnerships would not only maintain the existing traditions and sentimentality of marriage for heterosexuals, but also allow homosexuals to celebrate their commitment to one another. Civil unions would also grant couples of the same-sex the rights granted to married people that is otherwise unjustly denied to them. Allowing civil unions would solve the problem of discrimination against homosexuals because they would be able to enjoy all of the same economic benefits as their heterosexual counterparts (Rauch). Permitting gays to partake in a civil union seems to be the best solution to the same-sex marriage controversy as it is a mediation between the two viewpoints arguing the issue.
Another legal benefit that comes with marriage is the facilitation of adoption (Peterson). Married couples have a much easier time concerning the adoption of a child than that of couples who are not married. By granting homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals when they have a civil union, you are bringing the issue of gay adoption to the surface. This is another controversial issue that many people are unwilling to accept.
Since homosexuality is socially unacceptable in many parts of the United States, it may be considered unfair to place children where they might face persecution from their peers. However, with orphan statistics as they are today, gay and lesbian homes no longer appear so terrible. There are currently approximately 520,000 American children living in foster care and nearly a quarter of those children are available for adoption by a loving family. However, with restrictions and bans on gay adoption rights, only 50,000 of these children find homes each year (“Legal and Economic Benefits”). This statistic would change significantly if homosexual couples were allowed to adopt. As long as children are able to live in a stable two-parented home, sexuality should not be a factor.
Therefore, a solution to the gay adoption issue would be to allow gays the right to
adopt on the condition that they have had a civil union prior to adoption. This would ensure that the homosexual couple is committed to one another before bringing a child into the picture. Not only would allowing domestic partners adoption rights create places for the thousands of orphans to live, it would also create loving stable two-parented homes for them.
Another major issue concerning gay rights would be the argument that laws cannot be made based off of religious beliefs. It clearly states in the United States constitution that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (“Legal and Economic Benefits”). Inarguably, basing laws off of religion discriminates against minorities and is simply unconstitutional. However, it is mainly religion based arguments that are used as evidence to oppose same-sex marriage. Although Christian ideals do reflect the thinking of the majority of Americans, it is unjust to suppress the gay minority strictly based on the beliefs of the majority. Separation of church and state is an important ideal, yet it is one that is being infringed upon by the United States government with its limitations on gay rights based upon religious dogmas.
As society constantly undergoes change, changes in the attitudes of Americans need to take place as well. Homosexuality is becoming more and more acceptable in foreign countries and in states around the world. For example, gay marriage is now legal in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Massachusetts, and as of February 19, 2007, New Jersey (Johnson). The United States government is delayed in jumping on the bandwagon to join these open-minded nations and it’s about time they step up to the plate. This is not to say that homosexuals should necessarily be allowed to get married in a church anytime soon, but a civil union to recognize them as partners and grant them equal rights is not too much to ask. Civil unions have no effect on the heterosexuals opposed to gay marriage and they succeed in bringing equality to the unequal rights experienced by homosexuals.
Although asking for a complete change in the system as it stands today may be unrealistic and take a very long time, taking steps to improve upon the current system needs to start. A recent poll taken by ABC news found that although 55 percent of Americans are opposed to same sex marriage, only 50 percent are opposed to civil unions (“Support for Civil Union Rises”). This percentage is continuing to decrease as more and more people become open-minded to the idea of allowing homosexuals to partake in civil unions. With half (and growing) of the American population willing and ready to accept domestic partnerships, why not make them legal in more states than Massachusetts, and in doing so grant homosexuals the many other rights and benefits that come along with marriage? Also, improvements need to be made on gay adoption rights. By allowing homosexual couples that have committed themselves to one another through a civil union to adopt, you are creating many more stable two-parented homes for the thousands of orphans that will not find homes this year. Although people still hesitate to place children in a home that may cause them persecution from their peers, there have been very few studies showing that children living in homosexual homes are at the disadvantage. With no evidence to support the common beliefs against gay adoption, gays should be permitted to adopt and should have an easier time adopting once having had a civil union just as heterosexuals have an easier time adopting after having been married. Lastly, because most of the arguments opposed to gay marriage or civil unions and adoption are based mainly on Christian ideals, the United States government is integrating church and state, which is clearly unconstitutional. If America wants to continue denying homosexuals their rights, they need to come up with better reasons that are not religion based.

Works Cited
Inspired by the Bible Experience: The Complete Bible. Cambridge UP, 1999.
Johnson, Ramone. “Gay Marriage Around the World.” Your Guide to Gay Life. 31 Aug.
2007.
“Legal and Economic Benefits of Marriage.” Religious Tolerance. B. A. Robinson. 10
June 2007 http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm.
Peterson, Leland D. “A Rosy Future for Same-Sex ‘Marriage’?” New Oxford Review. June
2005.
Rauch, Jonathan. Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for
America. Yale UP, 2001.
Sullivan, Andrew. Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con. New York: Oxford UP, 2004.
“Support for Civil Union Rises, Yet Sharp Divisions Remain.” ABC News. Gary Langer. 8 Nov
2007. http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=3834625&page=1.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Dec 2001.

1 comment:

Charlotte Robinson said...

For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com