Though gay marriage doesn't guarantee social acceptance or approval by all government, it shouldn't discourage same-sex couples from being happy and in love for the rest of their lives. I honestly believe that the government should not even have a say at all in same-sex marriages, much less completely ban them in any one state because love is not a feeling we can control, much less something that we wish to end in a forced manner or heartbreak.
Massachusetts was the first state to legalize homosexual marriages, and just recently(2006) California also approved of them. After these states legalized gay marriages, couples have flocked to them to simply have the unforgettable ceremony that everyone else is allowed to have in their residing states. Since the time that Massachusetts and California have accepted homosexual marriages, eight states have allowed gays to enter civil unions or apply for domestic partnerships, yet twenty three states put out even more bans against them. Some may say that domestic partnerships and civil unions are enough because the couple is given most marriage rights and at the same time not upsetting the general public, but I think gays need to stand up for themselves. Looking back into history, Rosa Parks could've easily been okay with just being able to ride the bus period, but instead she took it a step farther to demand that she sits in the exact seat that she wishes. Homosexuals need to have the same kind of demanding mindset and make sure that instead of receiving most marriage rights they receive ALL of them.
If government is only willing to put forth domestic partnerships for gays then fine, but if the 'separate but equal' policy is still being applied to the United States, then we need to abolish marriages all together. Both heterosexual and homosexual. I'm sure that the country would think this is completely unfair and complain about it, but we need to consider the fact that we're putting certain relationships through this everyday. The huge stepping stone and sacredness of marriage is the ultimate bond for couples who want to spend the rest of their lives together. Eventually, the nation might be ready to extend the right of marriage to same-sex couples, but as of right now our government is overly demeaning and criticizing of them. Someone needs to take the initiative just as MLK and Rosa Parks have to stand up for same-sex marriages before gays are discriminated against in the same degree as the blacks were with the Jim Crow laws.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Though from a governmental standpoint the benefits of civil unions and marriages are the same, the label “marriage” tends to mean more for most people. I mean why settle for a regular purse when I could have a Coach one? In that sense, I agree with your comment that a homosexual’s rights to only civil unions does have a bit of a “separate but equal” feel to it. And since homosexual love is not inferior to heterosexual love, it seems a bit counterintuitive to have to split the definitions of a unity between two adults that way.
Abolishing marriage altogether wouldn’t work though. It only sounds better in theory. I may not be one of those girls who is in school for her MRS or spends every waking moment putting together the perfect wedding in her head, but I still would like a marriage someday. A “civil union” just wouldn’t feel the same. The problem with the government having nothing to do with marriages is that it begs the question, “Where do people turn should they still want one?” Likely many churches would continue to hold marriages of their own, but how does one obtain a marriage if they are not religious?
Ideally, we would just let any two consenting adults in a committed monogamous relationship have the right to a civil marriage. It’s so simple… everyone wins! So why can’t homosexuals marry too? The Bible says it’s an abomination. Case closed. The biggest reason most people want this “definition of marriage” amendment is because of that religious influence on their opinions.
Progress of this magnitude just takes time, and I think that the gay community has handled this situation about as best as they could. California’s Supreme Court didn’t make its decision because the gay equivalent of Rosa Parks approached a courthouse and sat there until she had the right to marry her partner. Too much demanding would reflect poorly on them, and the rest of America would just take even longer to open their eyes.
Post a Comment