The issue of gay rights has become increasingly more prominent in the past decade or so. It has gained the support of many, including that of the current President of the United States. Videos such as the "Gay Men will Marry Your Girlfriends" video have received a great amount of views and the movement continues to gain momentum. The fact that they are being denied their rights is being equivalated to even the Civil Rights Movement, with arguments that "20 years from now, our children will be shocked that we didn't allow gay couples the right to marriage." And they may be right in doing so. As Malcolm X stated, an American shouldn't have to fight for American rights.
 The rainbow has become a symbol representing the gay rights movement. |
| (Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/19/dadt-repeal-_n_798764.html) |
Marriage is a weird concept, because it is both regulated by the church and the government. In a country where the importance of separation of church and state to society has become increasingly prominent, marriage is the one thing that still blurs the line between the two. The way I see it, the majority of arguments against same-sex marriage are based on religion: "The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, so gay marriage is wrong." The arguments for gay marriage are the opposite: "The state issues marriage licences, so religion shouldn't have any say in who gets to get married." Right now, marriage happens in both civil and religious ceremonies. This is where the conflict comes in. Who gets to decide what defines a marriage? What makes this even more complicated is the fact that different areas have different laws for marriage. Currently in the US, 9 states allow same-sex marriages along with Washington DC. A few other states and areas recognize them. The fact that the laws are not consistent allow for a whole new level of discrepancy. The fight to define marriage has been chronicled in public, as some people argue for the dictionary definition of marriage and others argue for marriage as defined by the Defense of Marriage Act.
This is where things are going to get a little far-fetched: perhaps the solution is to make marriage a completely religious matter. Being married should not affect the benefits that a couple gets from the government at all. In addition, however, there should be a government equivalent to marriage, something that doesn't have anything to do with the religious concept, but instead deals with the rights and benefits of being someone's spouse. The major issues that I hear about today are how soldiers in a gay relationship don't get the same rights as a soldier in a straight relationship in regards to parental benefits, or that a person in a gay relationship doesn't get to choose what happens to their partners, should their partners be ill and unable to decide for themselves. Whether this (with lots of fine tuning and revising, I'm sure) has the potential of working is something that I'm actually curious about. This could eliminate the the need to fight for rights as an American. Everyone could be treated equally as an American in this aspect. But what is more important? Being able to call the relationship a marriage or being given the rights that marriage currently allows you to have? If the first was what was important, this proposal would not work at all. If it's the second, though, maybe this has a chance of making everyone happy. The "sanctity of marriage" wouldn't be a matter in this case. I realise, however, that I'm being incredibly idealistic when I say that there are two distinct categories. I'm well aware of the fact that for most couples, both are probably important to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment