The Fight for Homosexual Rights, Research Paper Example

The fight for homosexual rights and privileges has emerged in 1970s and has been intensifying since then; hence, the State is now facing the necessity of addressing the problem of homosexual marriage legalization constructively and seriously. The conventional restrictions on recognition of homosexual unions are not effective anymore due to the modern epoch of civilization development, turning to the ancient times experience and finding multiple arguments if not for the same-sex marriage but against the refusal to recognize its validity. The contemporary reality together with certain legal concessions pertaining to legal rights of homosexual couples dictates the necessity to review the traditional arguments against same-sex marriage and adopt a more constructive, suitable approach to the problem.

The pro-same-sex marriage fight has achieved some feasible results within a couple of past decades, which can be seen from the 1980s’ permission for homosexual couples to obtain ‘domestic partnership’ rights (Burns, 2005, ¶1). After that, the 1990s have been marked with the intense legislative fight for the legal recognition of same-sex unions, the first lawsuits against the state banning such unions emerged and resulted in certain legislative permissions. One of such civil cases in Vermont brought about the recognition of the same-sex ‘civil union’ – though it is not equal to marriage in its legal status, it still shows the progress in the same-sex marriage struggle (Burns, 2005, ¶4). Nowadays Vermont officially permits to conduct same-sex marriages, though they are not officially recognized in other states.

The Vermont event was a logical continuation of the 1978 Constitutional Court decision about marriage as a fundamental right of people, their fundamental civil right and the issue of utmost importance (Burns, 2005, ¶6). Hence, it has become possible to state that laws banning same-sex marriages contradict the Constitution. However, no matter how evident this fact is, there is no sign of anti-constitutionalism recognition in the state, which puts the whole power of Constitution into question. The arguments by which the state is driven on the way of banning same-sex marriages are too vague and contradictory that they do not have the right of affecting legislative decisions on the federal level, which may be proven by the further detailed review of each of them (Williams, 1999, ¶10).

The most widespread argument against marriage is the one of religious protest against homosexuality as a sin, and even the worst kind of it, i.e. abomination (Gannon, 2004, ¶3). However, the deeper review of other abomination kinds, namely murder or worshipping an idol, does not face the same fierce opposition for marriage from the state. Murderers and rapists, idolaters have the right to marry, which is considered normal under the state legislation. Thus, it becomes not clear why only same-sex marriages turn out opposing the human nature, while other sinners possess the whole set of fundamental civil rights (Gannon, 2004, ¶3).

Another argument recognized as a powerful tool against same-sex marriage is the initial purpose of procreation. Nonetheless, it is possible to recollect the number of couples living in a marriage and having no children disregarding their health status, just because of mutual agreement, to understand that modern marriages have lost their ancient procreation purpose (Gannon, 2004, ¶5-6). The modern marriage, as noted by Williams (1999), aims at getting the society to recognize the seriousness of the couple’s commitment to each other, to recognize the legality of their cohabitation and union. Thus, the same-sex marriage can serve the same purpose as well; it has been statistically found out that homosexual marriages are much stronger and more long-lasting than traditional ones.

Another popular argument is the historical tradition of recognizing marriage as a union between one man and one woman; however, this argument also stands no criticism in case rich historical experience of the humanity regarding the position of women in the family union. Women have historically been deprived of all rights for the property, and marriage was a union between two men (Gannon, 2004, ¶9). More than that, the evolution of standpoint regarding marriage is still taking place; this fact may be proven by the recent consideration of marriage between two people belonging to different races as a crime (Gannon, 2004, ¶9). Thus, in case inter-racial marriages have become legalized, the question of same-sex marriages can also possibly be solved in the near future.

Finally, the argument of biological compatibility of a man and a woman as a natural justification of traditional marriages has come into light recently (DeMarco, 2001). The immunological system of human organisms perceives an intrusion of another human being as alien and hostile, and only the penetration of a man into the woman’s body is biologically regulated as a normal one (DeMarco, 2001, ¶9). However, there has been no biological evidence of any health problems emerging from same-sex unions, and it stands to reason that in case people of the same sex felt uncomfortable in their sexual relations, they would not struggle for legalization of their relationships. Hence, this argument becomes not effective as well when it comes to opposing the same-sex marriage.

Drawing a conclusion from the same-sex marriage debate, one should note that the arguments against the issue are drawn from such fields as biology, morale and religion. There are no legal standards that dictate the possibility of marriage only between a man and a woman, and the traditional perception derives only from the conventional assumptions of the mainstream worldwide community. However, minorities of all kinds have started to claim for their inherent rights, and the responsibility of the State is to listen to them and to provide them with diversity of regulations for equal existence and observation of fundamental rights for all citizens. It dictates the provision of equal opportunities, marriage included, so the legal issue of same-sex marriage should not rely on religious or moral principles but be guided only by facts that state the right to same-sex marriage should be granted.

References

Burns, K. (2005). A Legal History of Same-Sex Marriage Battles in the United States. At Issue: Gay Marriage. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. College at Buffalo – SUNY. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved July 21, 2010, from http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc=infomark.do?&contentSet=GS RC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&=ocId=EJ3010014217&source=gale&userGroupName=buffalostate&version=1=0>.

DeMarco, D. (2001). Same-Sex Marriage. The Family in America: Online Edition, Swan Library of Family Culture, April, 2001. Copyright © 1997-2006 The Howard Center. Retrieved July 21, 2010, from http://www.profam.org/pub /fia/fia_1504.htm

Gannon, H.A. (2004). A Case for Same-Sex Marriage. Hohonu: A Journal of Academic Writing, vol. 2, No. 2. the Board of Student Publications, University of Hawaii at Hilo/Hawaii Community College. Retrieved July 21, 2010, from http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/academics/hohonu/writing.php?id=33

Williams, M.E. (1999). Society Should Allow Same-Sex Marriage. Opposing Viewpoints: Homosexuality. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. College at Buffalo – SUNY. Retrieved July 21, 2010, from http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark=do?&contentSet=GSR C&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=E=3010143228&source=gale&userGroupName=buffalostate&version=1.0