Why should gay marriages be legalised?

Question

What are the arguments for and against gay marriages?I would like to know all the for and against as it has been such a big issue till now and I would like to understand more about this issue.

Answer 1

Marriage equality is about being able to have the legal status applied to your marriage regardless of the gender of the two people marrying.

Gay people already have sanctioned religious marriage ceremonies that bless their union within the religions that most gay people belong to, yet the government refuses to also grant marriage recognition to these couples on the only basis that it is not between opposite gendered people but is a same gendered union. This is government discrimination since the government uses civil marriage to provide benefits, legal protections, rights, etc. to married people that it does not provide for unmarried people. Gay couples desire to be treated equally by the government on this matter (because they are taxpaying citizens, too, and if their tax dollars are going to be used to provide these benefits, legal protections, rights, etc then they want to have an equal share since they also have families of their own that they are raising).

Marriage equality protects the children of gay couples. Federal regulation of marriage (as well as most State's regulation) includes protections for the children of the couple united in civil marriage. Civil marriage is completely different from religious marriage (as noted above). Religious marriage is determined by the religious institutions (some recognize same sex marriages and some do not recognize them...both on the basis of religious belief). Civil marriage is the marriage regulated by the government. It is a contract between two people that the government recognizes and provides benefits, rights, and protections to those entering into the contract.

Marriage equality removes the restriction by the government that a marriage must be between two people of the opposite gender only. It would allow two people of the same gender who wish to enter into the contract of marriage with all it's responsibilities as outlined by the government to enter into it just as the two people of opposite gender already can enter into it. Some of the benefits and protections that the government provides can be obtained independently of marriage, but many cannot (and it is costly to obtain all of those that you can because there is seperate documentation, court hearings, lawyer fees, court fees, filing fees, notary fees, etc, for each of the seperate benefits and protections whereas a couple of opposite gendered people can simply go and pay the fees for marriage, sign the contract, etc and have them all...thus saving a lot of money while at the same time receiving the very same legal protections and benefits that gay couples have to spend a lot more money for, plus receiving even more legal protections and benefits that gay couples cannot obtain at all).

Civil unions are arrangements by government by which some of the benefits and protections of marriage is available to those wishing to enter into it. Civil unions are usually just for same-sex couples, but opposite sex couples can, by defination of the law, also enter into them if they choose to (instead of civil marriage). There is NO Federal civil union and civil unions are recognized on a State by State basis (thus one State may allow civil unions, another may not and if the couple moves from the State that recognized them as a civil union to a State that doesn't have civil unions the couple LOSES their legal protections and benefits in that State.....yet if one were allowed to enter into civil marriage the law clearly says that all States must recognize each other's marriages). Currently there is a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the Federal Level that now says States do not have to do this and all they have to do is pass a DOMA law of their own (and many have). Thus a gay couple who gets married in Massachusetts and is recognized as married there, if their work causes them to move to, say, Ohio, then the State of Ohio no longer has to recognize their marriage....and technically the DOMA makes it clear that States can also not recognize other types of marriages from other States....but because it is already established that States do recognize other opposite gendered marriages already then the threat is directly upon those wishing to enter into a same-sex union).

In some places, fearing that the DOMA will be repealed (and declared unconstitutional because of the Constitution's statements that States must recognize legal arrangements, etc, formed in other States), opponents of marriage equality have began the process of passing State Constitutional Amendments to ban same-sex marriages from ever being practiced (but these amendments could be challenged in Federal courts because again they violate the Constitution's statements on States having to recognize legal arrangements of other States...so they continue to advocate passing an amendment to the US Constitution itself which would thereby override all the States that recognize not only gay marriage, but also civil unions and common law marriages....if you read the text clearly enough that has been proposed for the amendment itself you'll see that this is legally what it does). It should be noted that in States where the constitutional amendments were passed that it also had the same language (thus not only outlawing same-sex marriages, but also civil unions and common law marriages....and in these States the amendment has effected heterosexual, opposite gendered couples, not homosexual, same-sex couples....who didn't have any legal rights as a couple in the first place...which can be seen through a number of court cases that have occured after passage of the amendments. Which just goes to show why it's important to consider all the consequences).

The main arguments that have arisen haven't really even been about marriage equality. So far the argument is who decides marriage? Who regulates marriage? Religious institutions? Government? Federal Government? State Government? Local Government? Religious institutions do regulate religious marriages, but those outside of the religious institution who enter into other marriages from other religions or the government do not concern those of one single religious institution. Some religious institutions provide nothing, some provide benefits to their members that have religious marriages. The Federal government does regulate marriage. Congress has passed numerous laws that provide Federal benefits and protections to people who enter into marriage. Yet the Federal government leaves the specifics of marriage, usually, to the States (which is why the DOMA states clearly that States wishing to enact similar laws pass a DOMA themselves....for the record Vermont, the State that first to haveCivil Unions, and Massachusetts, the State that first to have Marriage Equality, both did not have a State DOMA law). The State governments mainly regulate marriage. They set the rules of what the State recognizes as marriage and the State's requirements that persons wishing to enter into marriage must do (counseling, fees, etc, etc, etc) and these vary from State to State. In some States the counties (or smaller administrative districts similar to counties) are allowed to also regulate marriage even further than the State. And in some States even local hamlets, villages, towns, cities, and other municipalities are allowed to also regulate marriage even further. Meanwhile businesses also regulate marriage on their own. There are numerous businesses today that recognize same gendered couples who work for them as married just as they do opposite gendered couples who work for them and thus the companies provide the same benefits, protections, etc to the couples.

Thus their is already a divide between those who do recognize same sex couples as married and those who do not. The argument and question, then, isn't should gay people be allowed to marry, but should the Federal government recognize such marriages?

My simple answer is yes, the Federal government should recognize those marriages that are viewed as legitimate, most especially by the States, but also by local communities, etc. The nation of India has a fairly simple law regarding marriage: the federal government of India recognizes all marriages between two people that are either recognized by their local communities as being valid and confirmed in the presence of witnesses. Of course the federal government of India doesn't provide benefits and very few protections to people who are married, it is merely a legal status for legal arrangements. So it is somewhat different than in the USA.

I see no reason why two people wishing to enter into civil marriage should be denied by their government simply because they are both the same gender. At the same time I do understand the concerns many people of religious institutions that do not recognize such marriages have that they may be forced to recognize such marriages (i.e. perform the ceremonies). First the US Constitution makes it clear that we have freedom of religion. Thus no religion would be forced to recognize a marriage it didn't agree to (thus it would not have to perform religious marriages for marriages it doesn't accept according to their religion), but it would end the discrimination by the government which has no basis for its discrimination. If the government does not wish to deal with the matter, it can end its regulation on marriage altogether.

Gay people aren't fighting for religious marriage, we already have that. We are struggling against our government for civil marriage recognition. That's an important point. My beloved and I are already married within our religious traditions. Yet the government does not view us as anything more that two people who happen to share a space together (roommates), yet our bank recognizes as married, too.

Answer 2

Being a Canadian, I can speak for the pro side of this issue given that gay marriage has been legal here for nearly three years.

The sky hasn't fallen. No one has been harmed by this in any way, shape or form.

The issue, in my humble opinion, is both religious and economic. The religious believe that homosexuality is an "abomination" so making it legal in any sense is an affront to them. Economically, governments do not want to afford a gay couple the same legal rights as a straight couple because it will cost them in tax dollars. In the U.S., you have for profit health care so again, you have an economic issue if the gay spouse is able to access the health insurance coverage of the gay partner.

No matter how you look at it, it all comes down to this question. Do you want to marginalize a group based on sexual orientation? Or do you want all your citizens to enjoy the same rights of citizenship?

Answer 3

I'm from Holland and gay marriages are legal here. But maybe that's because Holland is less oppressed by religion than America. Everybody has the right to get trapped in a marriage if they want to. And as for rituals: you don't have to get married in a church. Lots of people in Holland don't get married in a church, they just go to the town hall and give a reception/party after-wards. You have to get married in the town hall anyway if you want to have a legal marriage so why not just leave it at that and go straight on to the party? Never mind the church.

Answer 4

Basically, the argument against gay marriage is that marriage is between a man and a woman only. A marriage between two men or two women is not natural or how God intended it, and it is wrong and sinful.

Answer 5

Twice Jesus said that a man will leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife. Both places the word wife is in the female form not masculine. Paul said that man would leave that which is natural and do things with another man that should be done with only a women. Humans are the only ones that feel that it is alright to have sex with the same sex. Nature it isn't so. No other group of animals does this.

Answer 6

"Why SHOULDN'T gay marriage be legalized?" is a better question, in my opinion. I definitely support it, but it's not that I really care one way or the other, it's just that there's no reason to ban it. And besides, you're not going to stop people from having gay relationships by banning gay marriage. Do you think gay male couples are going to stop holding hands and kissing in public if you make gay marriage illegal? They'll still do it regardless, obviously. So I don't know what you would accomplish by making it illegal.

Answer 7

Why should it be a government issue at all, it has nothing to do with government. If your against gay marriage don't marry one. I will believe the neo-cons are actually worried about the sanctity of marraige when they outlaw divorce. Gay marraige doesn't affect anyone but the gays so why do you care.

Answer 8

I don't see why 2 people cannot exchange vows to be together for the rest of their lives. Perhaps not a marriage in the religious sense and text, but to live as a loving couple - whatever sex they are biologically.

Answer 9

Bottom line, this country is not a theocracy. It is not the business of other people who gets married and to whom!If you are against gay marriage, than don't marry one. Otherwise, stay out of it.

Answer 10

I feel that, if 2 consenting adults want to further their commitment by getting married, good for them! What is the problem?? People think it's gross, well you don't have to show up at their wedding!

And for those who think gay marriage will erode the "family values" of society, I think that has already been accomplished many times over if you look at the divorce rates...

Answer 11

Marriages were originally intended for reproduction... I dont see where the reproduction comes in in a gay marriage. being gay isnt hereditary. I find nothing wrong with gay people i just dont believe they should be married.