I read a great blog today from Thera P. regarding the passing of a neighbor. I wanted to make a comment about it, and here it is. What follows is a short argument paper I wrote for an English class. The professor gave us a list of controversial topics, and I chose gay marriage. One of the guys I grew up with got married to his life partner during the short time it was legal in California, so though I'm not gay, I have a personal interest in this topic.

BTW- It's the only 100% I got on a paper. I usually score pretty well, but I haven't actually gotten 100% before or since.

I kept the citations in, just in case anyone wants to check my work.

Same Sex Marriage or Civil Unions: What's the Difference? 

One of the chief problems in the debate over the gay or same-sex marriage issue is one of language. Many politicians, when asked, will say they support civil unions, but that marriage, or at least that term, should only apply to opposite sex couples. In other words, as in legislation, such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. While most of these people agree that gays should not be victims of discrimination, and should be allowed to love and commit to a partner, as long as we don't call it "marriage."  What's wrong with that?

The real objection to using the word "marriage" in this context is still primarily a moral one, steeped in religious tradition. This is no surprise. After all, in the Bible, homosexuality is "absolutely forbidden, for it is a terrible sin" (Lev. 18:22, tr. 1971). For the state to allow something that is a "terrible sin" and give it legal status equal to a man and a woman where a man should love his partner as if she were "a part of himself" (Eph. 5:33), just as "Christ cares for...his church"(Eph. 5:25) is, I'm sure, insulting to many believers.

This objection, that many religious people, even if they are only casually religious have, is one that they should have. This is a deeply held belief, and one that is understandable. It has been taught and thought and said for generations. Since these beliefs are written in the religious texts, it is perfectly understandable that clergy and religious groups are against the practice altogether. They should be. It goes against their moral compass.

Many people are against discrimination in any form. Most agree that anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as it's legal, and they have the talent and will to do it. Even religious people believe that gay folks should be allowed to work and find love. Sanctioning that love is a different argument. We've all heard this one, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." So calling a union between two gay people can be legal, but not called marriage.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court overturned the ban on same-sex marriage, they concluded that to call it something else meant that it was something else. In her opinion Chief Justice Marshall stated that to refer to same-sex unions as anything other than marriage "continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status" (2003). Again, as long as the legislation confers equal protection, why not?

Vermont has civil unions, for example, and these unions bestow on a couple many of the benefits of marriage, but they only apply to residents of Vermont. They have protection in the family court for matters such as divorce; they have an automatic durable power of attorney, the right to family leave and the ability to file joint state income tax. These unions are not recognized by the federal government, however. So a couple in Vermont would be unable to file a joint federal tax return and realize the savings that a married couple can enjoy (Belge, n.d.).

Since these unions, like domestic partnerships in California, New Jersey, or Hawaii are sanctioned by the individual states, they are not recognized by the country at large. In other words, these protections vanish the moment a couple moves to a state that does not have this legal status on the books. Also, since these are benefits provided by the individual states, they are not uniform among those states (Gannon, 2008).

Across the country there are 1,049 protections and benefits bestowed on a couple that enters into marriage (GAO, 1997). These are automatic the moment a couple enters into matrimony. Automatically a spouse is the next of kin in all matters. If someone needs medical attention, and is unable to consent, all the spouse needs to do is say, "I'm the wife" and instantly that persons wishes are heard without having to hire counsel and without presenting papers. If a person with government benefits, such as a military veteran dies, the surviving partner receives benefits from the government on the deceased partner's behalf. Since civil unions don't have standing in the federal courts, these benefits would not pass to the survivor.

Why should the government even have the debate, let alone sanction this type of union? The answer is simple, equal protection under the law. The argument against it is one of a religious nature, and if religious institutions don't wish to acknowledge these unions, they shouldn't. Civil marriages, performed over by a judge aren't sanctioned by the church, yet in the eyes of the government are just as valid as any given by a clergyman. People that are joined in such ceremonies are as married as anyone that got the benefit of clergy. As far as the state is concerned, what's the real difference? There are 1,049 protections and benefits that marriage automatically gives. Shouldn't all Americans that want them be allowed to have them?

Bibliography

Belge, K. (n.d.). The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions. Retrieved January 23, 2009, from About.com: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

Gannon, H. A. (2008). Same-sex marriage should be allowed. Retrieved January 22, 2009, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center: http://find.galegroup.com.webproxy-prod.columbuslibrary.org/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010136208&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=cmlweb&version=1.0

Government Accounting Office. (1997, January 31). Letter to Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from Gao.gov: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. (2004, February 4). Gay & lesbian marriage decision: letter ot the Senate. Retrieved January 23, 2009, from Find Law: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/maglmarriage20304.html

The Living Bible. (tr. 1971). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale house Publishers.