Introduction
Marriage is an essential part of people’s social lives, that helps them regulate their relationships with each other. Gays and lesbians strive to have the same basic freedoms as heterosexuals, including the right to relationship. However, there exist not only ethical issues but also legal ones related to the restriction of rights. The absence of a marriage certificate can create the same difficulties for same-sex couples as for heterosexual ones. Still, these families have no opportunity to resolve them by formalizing their mutual relationship because some states in America prohibit them from marrying. At the same time, they are trying to defend the right to marriage at both the state and national levels. The public discussion addresses the issue of supporting or not recognizing same-sex marriages. Accordingly, the populations are divided into two camps: some approve of gay marriage rights, while others believe that this right undermines respect for the institution of the family.
Context of the Problem
Non-registration of same-sex marriages causes many problems for gays and lesbians. For example, if the relationship ends, it is challenging for homosexuals to divide their common property. Another point to mention about divorce is that if they married in a state that allowed it and lived in a prohibitionist jurisdiction, they must divorce where they live. Accordingly, a legal conflict is founded, which takes a long process and a significant amount of effort to resolve. At the same time, there are many advantages in the U.S. in the form of general family insurance or tax and pension benefits that gays do not receive in some states. It should be noted that without a formal marriage, it is incredibly problematic for same-sex couples to adopt a child (Hart-Brinson, 2018). Thus, full official recognition of same-sex marriage should provide all the constitutional rights for gays that are now limited.
History
Gays have been trying to assert their rights to recognition as a social group for a long time. The Stonewall revolts started a political movement when even homosexuality was considered illegal in every state except Illinois. By 1973 nearly fifty thousand organizations were fighting for the rights of homosexual minorities. As early as 1970, gays were demanding official recognition of the right to marry (Mattson, 2020). The issue of same-sex marriage again rose after the 1993 Hawaii court ruling that the state must recognize gay unions. Subsequently, 40 more states passed the Defense of Marriage Act, recognizing only traditional marriage. In 1996, Bill Clinton signed a law stating that no state should accept gay unions. Nevertheless, the case of Baker v. Vermont admitted gay marriage rights (Tankard & Paluck, 2017). However, until 2010, 14 states banned same-sex unions. In 2011 President Obama introduced a proposal to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, accordingly prohibiting same-sex unions. Afterward, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage the problem remains unresolved in certain states.
Parties to the Debate
Proponents of recognizing same-sex unions argue that rejection based on gender is discriminatory. At the same time, they emphasize that the prohibition and condemnation of gay marriage lead to the perception that they are not full citizens. Advocates also point out that people in same-sex marriages should enjoy all the rights afforded to ordinary couples. In support of their views is a 2014 Miami-Dade County Circuit Court decision, noting that Floyd’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional (Hirsch, 2020). The court’s opinion claims that it has the effect of diminishing the protected constitutional rights and dignity of gay people. It is also discriminatory because there are many benefits available only to married couples. For example, they file a joint tax return that reduces the tax burden or family insurance. However, advocates of gay marriage also make the claim that such unions boost the economy. For example, in 2012, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg reported that gay marriage enriched the budget by fifty-nine million dollars in one year alone (Hirsch, 2020). That is, gay couples also paid taxes and marriage licensing fees, which helped fill the budget.
The views of those in favor of banning same-sex unions should also be considered. Their main argument is that the marriage of the gay couple undermines values and centuries-old traditions. As an alternative, they propose the protection of gay rights at the level of social unions. Another argument is the religious belief that partnership is necessary to continue the species and that gays cannot provide this. A California Supreme Court would affirm this view and indicate that what matters to society is the continuation of the species. Similarly, religious teachings oppose the legalization of marriage. The Bible, in Leviticus 18:22, states, “Current shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Williams, 2018, p. 247). Thus, believers interpret this as a prohibition against such a relationship and consequently its legalization.
Recommendations to Solve the Issue
In order to solve the same-sex marriage problem, public opinion must be examined to reassure it that there is no danger if gay marriage is legalized. In fact, most gay couples also have religious beliefs and will attend services at church. Thus, one can request the help of a religious pastor to explain that marriage is needed not only for the continuation of the species but also for the peace of heart and soul. In this way, the anxiety and sadness that accompanies gay marriage result from the influence and misunderstanding of others, something the Bible does not approve of either. Accordingly, many believers will realize that their categorical thought is inconvenient and not following the commitments of the church (Williams, 2018). In turn, same-sex unions will have more success among religious people, who are very categorical on this issue. As a consequence, then the religious factor will not be one of the reasons for not registering marriages.
The next recommendation is to use international law, as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Human Rights Committee prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex. Therefore, it is possible to appeal to international bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights. Based on the fact that these democratic institutions ensure that states respect the rights of citizens, their decisions are mandatory. Accordingly, a gay couple will officially register their marriage in a forbidding state (Williams, 2018). At the same time, the state or the nation will have a court decision to be respected in the following similar cases. This will thus ensure that same-sex marriages will be registered in a free and compulsory manner.
Conclusion
Therefore, the problem with same-sex marriages is that not recognizing them comprehensively creates inconvenience for gay couples; accordingly, their rights guaranteed by law are restricted. Meanwhile, there is still an active public debate about whether or not same-sex marriages should be officially accepted. Both sides of the discussion make strong arguments, which continues to be the case. In summary, gays still have problems in areas where heterosexuals are not limited.
References
Hart-Brinson, P. (2018). The gay marriage generation. New York University Press.
Hirsch, H. N. (2020). The future of gay rights in America. Routledge.
Mattson G. (2020). The gay marriage generation: How the LGBTQ movement transformed American culture. Contemporary Sociology, 49(2), 170-172.
Tankard, M. E., & Paluck, E. L. (2017). The effect of a Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage on social norms and personal attitudes. Psychological science, 28(9), 1334-1344.
Williams, H. H. (2018). From family values to religious freedom: Conservative discourse and the politics of gay rights. New Political Science, 40(2), 246-263.