32 52
www.websitelinkhere.com/link globalopic issues 32
differ with Cere is that I believe that heterosexual identity could stand a little change, and furthermore I do not see heterosexuality as a fixed entity in the first place. I understand the fear of change and it is true that marriage does underpin many social values. Yet one cannot ignore that marriage is not and has never been an institution cast in stone. It has been augmented through the introduction of divorce and even made into entertainment in the mainstream media. Therefore, if marriage has been in a state of evolution, and treated slightly less than sacrosanct what is the harm in expanding its parameters even further? Why heterosexuals should have an exclusive claim on an institution which could help to form the basis of a more inclusive and equal society I am not sure. When one examines the issue of same sex marriage rationally it appears to be simply an issue of civil rights. Ben Atherton-Zeman, quoted in Courting Equality is a heterosexual advocate for same sex marriage and perhaps puts it best when he says, “don’t get me wrong, I love my marriage, but it feels like I drank from a white’s only fountain.” If one can divorce religion from the concept of marriage there is nothing much left but a civil rights issue. Legally, this has been upheld by the 2003 Goodridge decision in Massachusetts which according to Gozemba and Kahn “recognized individual rights to privacy in intimate relations and acknowledged that choosing one’s marriage partner is an essential part of exercising ones freedoms as a human being.” Those in opposition to same sex marriage would argue that civil unions, which would theoretically provide the benefits without the title of marriage, would be a middling solution. Yet as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has pointed out, “history… has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.” Different labels inevitably mean that inequality would be written into the paradigm and marriage would forever be held as above, or slightly more than civil unions. Civil unions may be a necessary stepping stone in the evolution of this issue, but they could be dangerous as they invite further codified discrimination into society on the basis of sexual orientation. In the interests of understanding the opposition, the two major objections to same sex marriage appear to be that it is against tradition and religious values. The argument for tradition, as is outlined by Linda Deutsch and Lisa Leff in the article “Gays Decry Obama’s Stand on Gay Marriage,” “a union between a man and a woman is the traditional and universally recognized version of marriage.” This logic is circular as something is right because it is tradition and it is tradition because it has always been done that way. As Andrew Sullivan, author of “State of the Union” has pragmatically pointed out, “[i]f marriage were the same today as it has been for 2000 years it would be possible to marry a twelve year old you had never met, to own your wife as property…or to imprison a person who married someone of a different race. And it would be impossible to get a divorce.” Societies constantly evolve and there is an argument to be made for the fact that social evolution is what keeps a civilization viable. Therefore, it seems strange to assert that change should be limited due to tradition, when tradition is not as stable as we believe it to be. The only tradition that humanity has, is one of constant change. The second aspect which argues for the limitation of marriage to the “traditional” union of a man and a woman is religion. The aspect of religion is far more difficult to disentangle and, in the United States, far more heated. In light of this I would like to note that I am not condemning religion as an institution, I am however questioning its validity when it impinges on the rights of individuals in what should be a secular society. In this case there appears to be a clash of rights, the rights of individuals to protect and practice their religion, and the rights of others to equality. Perhaps the greatest point of contention within the issue of gay marriage, religion represents the conflation of church and state in a very public, supposedly secular setting. Gozemba and Kahn state that those opposed “argue that same sex marriage will destroy a sacred religious institution…[yet] civil marriage is a secular institution through which the state grants multiple financial and social benefits to family units.” Even though almost “40% of marriages are preformed with out any religious ceremony” the institution still has strong religious ties. In a country where faith often governs not only social opinion but politics, it is difficult to make a case for secularism in an institution which literally straddles the church and the state. Yet one aspect that is not considered by those who would advocate against same sex marriage on the basis of religion is the question of who’s religion do we respect? As Cole points out, although “some religions hold that marriages must be limited to a union between a man and a woman, other religions such as Buddhism, Unitarianism and Reformed Judaism hold just as deeply that individuals should be free to marry those of their own sex.” So then, if we believe that people should have the freedom to practice their religion, and some of those religions dictate that same sex marriage is acceptable then are we not doubly impinging on their rights? How is it possible that a country can pick and choose which religion’s values it will honor? Whatever one’s opinion upon religion there is no doubt that where religion transects same sex marriage there is bound to be difficulty. University of Michigan law professor Douglas Laycock, author of “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty,” sums up the situation when he states that “part of the reason the same sex marriage issue is so intractable is that it arises in the context our most fundamental and long lasting breach of separation of church and state…in marriage legal and religious institutions are thoroughly combined.” Until secularism is either upheld, or the conflation of interests is acknowledged and a solution proposed it is religious interests, especially in conservative America, that will provide the largest stumbling block to the success of the gay rights movement. When same sex marriage is considered simply as a civil rights issue there can be little dissent about its validity. Though religious elements complicate the issue there is still no doubt that same sex marriage should be legalized on the basis of providing equality for all.