Love Knows No Boundaries
Homosexual relationships go unrecognized in almost every country in the world, even in this day and age. Although we have made tremendous progress in virtually every other arena of social issues, there is still a feeling of persecution and a sense of hostility and unfairness towards the gay community. It is a beautiful thing when two people fall in love and want to commit their lives to one another; an even more beautiful thing when a couple want to have and raise a child, to further express their love in other ways. Unfortunately, in our society, this is not okay. Some countries - two, actually: Belgium and the Netherlands - have legalized same-sex marriages, but adoption is still forbidden everywhere except the Netherlands. This is how it should be, according to Bruce Fein, who believes that we should Reserve Marriage for Heterosexuals. However, according to Thomas Stoddard, in Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, this way of thinking is comparable to white supremacy. Thomas Stoddard is correct in his belief that each and every person should be entitled to marry whomever he or she may choose. If someone is blessed enough to find the one person they desire to spend eternity with, they should be allowed. Further, married couples should always be allowed to have children of their own to love and nurture.
According to Bruce Fein, “authorizing the marriage of homosexuals … would be unenlightened social policy” (242). Fein believes that a child raised by two adults of the same sex would suffer from this environment. He claims that, regardless of the parents’ love for one another, as well as the child, this is no excuse to allow them the joys of parenthood. He states that a child requires the presence of both a male and female figure in order to reach a balanced mindset and develop properly. However, one must consider that there are a vast number of functional children, especially in America, raised by a single parent. Many of these children turn out just fine, true, but two parents are typically better than one. What about the children sitting alone in orphanages, unloved and abandoned, who face an uncertain future? If homosexuals were allowed to adopt as married couples, sharing the custody of their children, more and more children would be placed into loving homes. Fewer instances of detached, violent, and lethargic children would be reported. From that, we would have less and less adults of broken backgrounds, because someone loved them and took care of them.
One must also realize that a father and a mother do not always a happy family make. Take into consideration the number of abusive husbands and fathers we see in our society. Think about how many neglectful and abusive homes exist at this time, not only in the United States, but the world. Just because two adults of the opposite sex marry and reproduce, there is no guarantee of their ability to provide, nurture, and protect. Granted, there can never be any guarantees, regardless of the nature of the parental unit, but when parents have to decide and go out of their way to have children, it seems as though they would logically make the better guardians. They have to want the children. They have to go into this lifelong contract, knowing that they will be required to support and care for this child from that point forward. There can be no accidents in these circumstances.
Fein ignores the frequency of broken homes in our society today. Regardless of the presence of both male and female parental figures, it is impossible to guarantee that the adults will care for and about their children. Many children nowadays are mistakes, and they are fully aware of it. Young couples are often forced to be married because of accidental pregnancies, and end up feeling robbed of their freedom and their youth. The blame is heaped upon the child: the product of their wrongdoings. However, in the instance of same sex relationships, it is impossible for accidental pregnancies to occur. Two women would have just as hard a time conceiving as two men would. It cannot be done. Thus, parents would have to adopt their children, hand-picking them from among the other orphans. The children would be brought up knowing that they are extra special because their parents got to pick them out. It seems clearly obvious that two loving parents, both dedicated to the child they themselves chose, would be much better suited role-models than a male and female couple who inflict pain and suffering on the children they do not want. Partners who seek out their children and adopt them into their family are most definitely up to par with opposite-sex spouses who love and nurture the children they desired and produced. How is it really all that different?
Thomas Stoddard believes that anyone who desires the joy of marriage should be allowed to experience this permanent bond. He feels that the government has no right to regulate whom a person can or cannot marry, and that this biased attempt at totalitarianism lends a comparable nod to the – until recently – forbidden union of interracial couples. Stoddard addresses those who are against the allowance of same-sex marriages, who feel that they would be “anti-family”. He states, “Marriage creates families and promotes social stability. In an increasingly loveless world, those who wish to commit themselves to a relationship founded upon devotion should be encouraged, not scorned” (241). He continues to point out the absurdity in forbidding homosexual couples to have children. He points out that there is no argument in marriage as a child-making faction. If the sole purpose for marriages were simply for the purpose of procreation, “states would forbid marriage between those who, by reason of age or infertility, cannot have children...” (241), as well as marriages between two people who choose not to have children for any number of different reasons. One could compare with ease the nature of feelings toward interracial marriages, less than a century ago, to the current nature of feelings toward same-sex marriages. Radical, conservative whites did not want blacks marrying into their race. Conversely, this same breed of “Heterosexual Supremacists” will hear nothing of the concept of same-gender marriages. They would rather pretend that homosexuals are not human, or are genetically flawed, mentally inferior, or simply confused.
Constitutionally, we, as Americans, have the right to the pursuit of happiness. How is the inability to marry the person you love going to make you feel? Certainly not happy! Marriage cements financial stability, it gives comfort and assurance and protection, and it should never be forbidden to anyone.
The United States is lagging behind other countries in its recognition of same-sex unions. While couples of the same gender are allowed to live together and are sometimes recognized as partners, they rarely are given the benefits a married couple receives, such as the ability to bury a deceased spouse and draw their pension after death. Issues have come up forbidding many aspects of married life to same-sex couples – issues often taken for granted by married couples. Vermont saw a case in 1998, Baker v. State of Vermont, which brought about a declaration from their Supreme Court, declaring that the blockage of same-sex marriages and rights was unconstitutional. Around this same time, Hawaii heard the Baehr v. Miike case, pushing them to reconsider opening civil marriages to same-sex couples. This, however, never came to light (Graff).
Currently, the African National Congress is calling for same-sex marriages in South Africa. In Germany, a 1998 poll showed that an overwhelming 62 percent of citizens supported their then-new government’s plan to have same-sex partnerships practically mirroring heterosexual marriages. Countries such as the Czech Republic, Brazil, Spain, and Switzerland are reviewing bills to allow the protection of same-sex marriages. In France, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, and Sweden, homosexuals can enter legal partnerships that are everything but marriage. The right to adopt is still forbidden. The law in Netherlands states that couples may marry, regardless of gender, and ensure that any child born to two legal partners shall have two legal parents. This allows couples the additional options of adoption and alternative conception. In Australia, Canada, and Britain, immigration policies offer legal residency to their citizens’ foreign-born spouses, regardless of sex. In July 1997, British Columbia’s legislature changed the definition of the term “spouse” to include same-sex partners. This move allows more money to go to children for child custody and support (Graff).
Our country is not keeping up with the main players of the rest of the world. Other industrialized, modernized countries are realizing that allowing couples to marry, regardless of gender, is not only the fair thing to do, but also the right thing to do. America should see that government intervention of love is just plain wrong. In our society, we recognize and embrace change frequently. This is the way we work: we progress. Just a few decades ago, women were not able to vote, they gave up their property to their husbands upon marriage, and they were not allowed to terminate unwanted or potentially harmful pregnancies. Women used to be looked down upon for wearing pants instead of skirts or dresses. We saw that times were changing, and our government and its people had to welcome change. Now, we need to take that a step further: allow two women to marry one another. Allow two men to marry one another. Interracial marriages were once forbidden, but now black citizens can marry Mexican-Americans, white citizens can marry Indian-Americans, and everyone in between can marry any person of any race or ethnicity – so long as they are of the opposite sex. It is long past time to recognize the inappropriate legislation that forbids couples from sharing in eternal matrimony. It is time to pull the people of our nation into the twenty-first century and bring ourselves up with the pace of modern times. The time is now.
Works Cited
Fein, Bruce. "Reserve Marriage for Heterosexuals”.
Mosier and Watters 242-244.
Graff, E.J. “The Trend Toward Same-Sex Marriage”.
The Boston Globe. February 2, 1998.
Mosier, Joyce and Ann Watters. Creating America. 3rd ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Ed, Inc., 2002.
Stoddard, Thomas. “Marriage Is A Fundamental Right”.
Mosier and Watters 239 - 241.
posted by alison at
4:16 PM
