MCT Campus
Debating whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage is not for the faint of heart. Oftentimes, it yields a firestorm of disputes about religion, traditionalism, the right to privacy and issues of equality. Those in opposition of same-sex marriage argue that allowing same-sex couples to marry would be a threat to the sanctity of traditional marriage and their religious beliefs. Desperation to halt this seemingly never-ending battle has given way to what appears to be a middle ground: civil unions.
Civil unions aim to provide same sex couples with roughly the same rights and privileges as those in heterosexual relationships. This option often appears to be the only path to resolution in this impassioned debate, or so most think. Some — generally those opposed to gay marriage — believe it establishes the perfect middle ground. Others, such as myself, see it as an unsatisfying attempt to compromise the rights of homosexual citizens.
For one, civil unions are not recognized in all states, and because there is no solid definition for what a civil union entails, states are allowed to alter or completely refuse “marital” rights and privileges to same-sex couples. Secondly, because the federal government does not recognize civil unions, same-sex couples are prohibited from receiving certain federal benefits that heterosexual married couples have access to, such as immigrant marital privileges, joint federal tax returns and social security survivor benefits.
But worst of all, civil unions completely segregate the gay and lesbian community from the rest of society, forcing them to legally identify with a specialized group of people, simply because of their sexual orientation, so they can receive some of the marital rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Excuse me, but what year is this? For those who don’t remember the Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the case evolved when Homer Plessy, a black man, deliberately defied Louisiana’s Separate Car Act, which legally segregated blacks and whites on intrastate railroads, by sitting in a car for whites only. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of John Howard Ferguson and declared “separate but equal” accommodations for blacks and whites.
Granted, while today’s segregation of homosexuals is not as severe or obvious as the struggles represented by Plessy, the “separate but equal” mentality is being applied all the same.
The proof lies in plain sight. Gay and lesbian citizens do not share the same rights as other U.S. citizens, yet those attempting to mask the obvious inequality presume to parade around the option of civil unions, with all the bells and whistles attached, assuring homosexual couples will share most, if not all, of the same rights as heterosexual couples. If this doesn’t scream separate but equal, then you’re not listening hard enough.
What disturbs me the most about segregating marital statuses is the attitude that accompanies this insolent proposal as if the closed-minded, haughty opponents of gay marriage are bestowing some charitable gift on the homosexuals of this country by allowing them to “unite.” Who do these people think they are? They seem to believe same-sex couples should be satisfied with whatever they can get. I’m sure African Americans heard the same spiel during the civil rights movement. Imagine if they had actually listened.
What I can’t fathom is how people can attempt to justify withholding certain rights from another citizen. What are they so afraid of? That allowing homosexuals to marry will ruin the sanctity of their religion’s marriages? Oh, please. In what ways are same-sex couples going to tarnish marriage that heterosexual couples haven’t already? Divorce, infidelity and sodomy run rampant throughout marriages. Trust me, heterosexual couples have already done it all.
“But it makes me uncomfortable.” Well, people advocating prejudice and segregation in 2011 makes me uncomfortable. “The Bible only recognizes intimacy between a man and a woman.” What’s your point? I don’t live my life according to the Bible and if the Constitution could speak, it would recite the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the core issue here is not religion or the sanctity of marriage. It’s the misconception that legalizing gay marriage is something to be debated when in reality, it isn’t. Equality is just common sense.
— Stacey Oparnica is a journalism sophomore.
— The views expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Daily Aztec.
Loading ...
I am a heterosexual male, with gay friends and also very religious ones. My views on the matter fall in the middle, i care about the well being of both sides and I am sick of the bickering back and forth. Obviously both sides have opposing goals and reservations with same-sex marriage, but there is room for negotiation. It is very disappointing to see the inability for either side to make the necessary concessions in order to find common ground and come up with a mutually beneficial solution. For the same-sex community to get what they want they must realize that they will not win marriage, and the religious community needs to realize that the homosexual community is not going away. I believe there is a relatively simple solution. One where neither side will have excessive forfeiture, maintains the sanctity of marriage, and will benefit all Americans equally. The answer, contrary to your opinion, lies in civil unions.
The goal of same-sex couples in this debate is to gain the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, and to be viewed equally by society. The goals of those wishing to keep marriage, and all its rights, between a man and a woman do not want to be considered equal to someone who, in their eyes, has sinned. Both are extremely fair view points based on their beliefs and situations. Like it or not marriage started as a religious ceremony and religious community will not and should not give that up to “sinners” as defined by their religion. The religious community refuses to believe that their actions are discriminatory and they will never change their mind, that’s fine. Let them believe they are right and concede the ceremony of marriage allowing them to keep it scarred. The legal rights from marriage dont come from the ceremony, they dont come from the church, and they dont come from the exchange of vows. The legal rights come from signing a marriage license, which is recognized by the government, and gives that couple special rights and privileges. This is the only part that the religious community needs to concede, the ability for the government to recognize the civil union of all couples regardless of their genders. This should be no problem as the sanctity of the ceremony of marriage is maintained and they can still be “married” in accordance to their religion.
The signing of the marriage license needs to be renamed a civil union, in which all couples wishing to get special rights and privileges must sign. This civil union license would give the unionized couple the exact legal rights a “married” couple used to receive. This couple would have the choice of ceremony in which to honor their union, whether it be a traditional marriage as described by their religion, or a ceremony adapted to fit the needs and desires of the newly unionized couple.
This way everyone wins. The same-sex couples get the rights they deserve as citizens of this country, and are looked at equally as all couples are now “unionized.” The religious communities traditional ceremonies remain scarred and reserved for those who practice the religion. The religious community will also be able rest assured that the same-sex couples union through the government granting them rights and privileges will not tarnish their marriage through their church and under god.
The Insistance of the same-sex couples that they be “married” is a waste of valuable time. Concede the traditional word, and get the rights and privileges that you deserve enjoying the “unionized life” and the tax benefits. Besides, the tradition of marriage began as a union between a man and a woman. Same sex couples are not traditional, embrace that, and run with. It is not fair to the religious community to take a ceremony of their creation and mold it to honor a union which it does not condone.
‘“The Bible only recognizes intimacy between a man and a woman.” What’s your point? I don’t live my life according to the Bible and if the Constitution could speak, it would recite the First Amendment.’ That’s fine that you dont live your life by the bible, but millions of Americans do. Recognize that, respect that, and let them live the life they want to live. They dont want you input on how they live or what they should believe in. They may one day become tolerant to the homosexual lifestyle but you cant force the issue or even expect a more open mind on the subject. This idea that homosexuality is wrong has been ingrained into their brains, and that will take a long time to change. Just get yours while they get theirs realizing that this diversity is what makes America the world’s best country.
First, let me say that I sincerely appreciated this column and the underlying attitude expressed. The author is right when she says that separate is not equal.
There was a time when I would have agreed with CV, that there has to be some middle ground. I thought everybody would be happy if we could just call gay “marriage” something else, that is was just a matter of semantics. However, the problem is that it does matter.
If, as CV suggested, all couples just got “unionized”, no one group would be stigmatized. The current mismash of domestic partnerships, civil unions, and marriages creates separate distinctions and categories. In our world today there is only one universally recognized and fully protected status for two consenting adults who want to join their lives together—it is marriage.
CV mentioned that marriage started as a religious ceremony. Actually, it started as a legal contract between a man and the father of a woman. Legal rights and obligations came at the signing of that contract just as they do when a completed marriage license is filed today. That was the universally recognized system of the time.
Rights, along with the social perception and status that accompanies them, are the crux of the problem today. Providing them for certain adult couples while denying them to others is wrong. Providing them for all, but labeling that differently for a certain group of people is wrong.
Separate is not equal. Maybe an analogy would help. What if blond fathers banded together and decided that only they could be called “fathers”. Men with brown hair or red hair, would have to be referred to as “male care providers”. How would those other dads feel even if they still had the same rights as other fathers? They would feel singled out, different, less than other “normal” dads. That is how gay couples feel today.
Semantics do matter. A system of marriages for some and civil unions for others will continue to be divisive and hurtful.
Civil unions are disallowed by 25 of the 50 states, so at some point the whole civil unions debate is a farce anyway. Telling someone they have the option to be separate but equal is bad enough, but it’s far worse when that option doesn’t actually exist in half the country anyway (19 states have constitutional amendments specifically banning civil unions, and another 6 have statues prohibiting them).
It is funny, in an ironic sort of way, that I agree completely with CV’s general comment even though I am an openly gay man who is about as anti-religious as one can get. CV may be wrong about the origins and development of marriage, but he is absolutely correct in wondering why both camps in this debate have become so polarized that they cannot find a reasonable middle ground.
CV is correct in stating that no rights are conferred by the religious rite of marriage; that these are conferred by the signature on the certificate. Has it occurred to any of the marriage equality proponents that many of these state amendments exist because of their inability to see a larger picture, a picture in which we can finally remove yet one more religious holdover from the secular laws of our country?
Any rational person should have known what they were opening up when this debate began. In fact, it is my opinion, after many conversations with the more militant proponents, that they did and purposely led the community to this impasse. If it has always been simply about securing the secular rights guaranteed married persons in this country, any process that created an equal and fair system, to which every person is treated, then the idea of removing marriage from the secular legal construct would have been just as rational as gaining this word, marriage. However, when this was brought up, and it was shown that this was as easy, if not easier than the fight for marriage, these militants ignored, or more often, attacked the gay persons bringing it to the table.
I found, in my many conversations with these militants, that it usually ended up that they wanted to be able to call themselves married as some sort of in-your-face to parents, family, or others who had hurt them in the past. Rather than everyone having these rights, by changing the underlying legal structure to more fully conform with our secular government, we are now mired in an abyss of hate and anger that has split families, friends, and communities. Was this necessary? Nope.
I know that there are going to be many out there that jump on this as a self-hating gay man trying to appease. You can have your judgmental and misguided belief all you want. Try instead to look at the actual discussion and note that for years rational people from all over the political and religious spectrum have tried to push this goal, only to be shot down by the extremist and juvenile thinking of small groups at both ends of the spectrum.
Unfortunately, I am coming to the conclusion that the militants on both sides have made it impossible to revisit this option.
It’s like, we get it. Maybe I didn’t do my history research as thoroughly as I should have. Thank you for pointing that out and correcting me. I can only be a genius in so many aspects of my life. History, apparently, is not one of them. While i dont fully believe that i was wrong, im too lazy to look it up right now. Take your victories where you can.
“Civil unions are disallowed by 25 of the 50 states, so at some point the whole civil unions debate is a farce anyway.” Well guess what? 30 states have constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages. By your logic, same sex marriage argument is a farce as well. If we are trying to make change, bring new rights to more people and allowing people in similar situations the same rights then something has to change. Come up with a better idea. One that works.
“Separate is not equal. Maybe an analogy would help. What if blond fathers banded together and decided that only they could be called “fathers”. Men with brown hair or red hair, would have to be referred to as “male care providers”. How would those other dads feel even if they still had the same rights as other fathers? They would feel singled out, different, less than other “normal” dads. That is how gay couples feel today.” Thank you for the separate is not equal analogy. We get it, we learned that in Brown v Board of Education. Thats why i said gay couples AND straight couples need to be civil unionized, so everyone is on the same page. THEN if your religious go get married under God, step on a wine glass, or do whatever it is you do.
The fact of the matter is who has the leverage, the Gay marriage camp or the religious camp? At this point it seems to remain with the religious camp and they aren’t letting go. You have to find either a bigger lever or get clever.
The ego mania of both sides is probably the best part of this whole debate. This is a situation where bi-winning is possible. Heres how:
-civil unions will be recognized by state and federal governments for heterosexual and homosexual couples. This new civil union would be religion free, and include the rights of the old marriage contract
gay marriage camp – winning. Equal rights for hetero/homosexual couples. same title for all couples. no discrimination.
Anti gay marriage camp- also winning. “Marriage” is maintained. They can continue with their narrow-minded lives.
Its called using your brain. If you can’t beat them (by getting a bigger lever) CHANGE THE RULES AND PRETEND THEY ARE WINNING WHILE YOU STILL GET WHAT YOU WANT (getting clever).
I was just thinking about how we have civil unions in our country today. All marriages are actually civil unions, unions created by the civil authorities. In terms of legal rights and responsibilities, the only type of union recognized by the government is that procured by following the civil requirements of a particular state. Since that is true, it might have been better to have called that legal contract between two people a “civil union”. The point is that it isn’t. We called it and continue to call that “marriage”.
If all unions for all couples were labeled “civil unions” much would have to change. One of the reasons gay couples want to marry is that the federal government does not recognize the terms “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions”. The terminology that protects legally joined couples in all federal law and documents is “marriage”. As the law currently exists marriage is the issue.
Existing rights should be available to all. Under proposed and current “civil union” legislation, one group is singled out from the majority. If you are a gay couple you can get one thing, “civil union”, but not “marriage”. That type of ostracizism must end. If we pretend they are winning, we still lose.