Gay Marriage: Social, Political and Financial Issue

Gay Marriage: Social, Political and Financial Issue
Daniela Chirinos Peralta
Pre-Degree
Ilene Sova
December 14th, 2009

The second article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. Visibly, since 1948, when this Declaration was written, principles of equality have been established in society. Nevertheless, the dispute over the legalization of gay marriage is a common subject of debate and the cause of numerous headlines all over the globe. Why if human rights have been settled, is society still debating on a right that all humans should have? “Marriage is a civil right that must be extended to all people, regardless of gender or sexuality” (168, R. Claire Snyder). Homosexual individuals should be allowed to wed in order to establish parity and equality of rights between homosexual and heterosexual people. The final legalization of same-sex marriage throughout the world is a step towards having a more equal society. Everyone is entitled to have the same rights. At the same time, allowing gay marriage would end oppression inside society and create harmony and peace. Also, legal homosexual matrimony would give access to gay individuals to economic and legal rights concerning their partners. This is why there are many reasons and various aspects that prove that the legalization of homosexual wedlock is a tremendous step that all societies need to take. Non- supporters of the legalization of same-sex marriage; specially conservatives and religious believers, argue that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman with the purpose of creating new life. However, if procreation was the whole and only intention of matrimony, then why are infertile heterosexual couples, as well as elderly people allowed to marry? Jonathan Rauch, American author, journalist and activist wrote in the political magazine The New Republic, that “For a homosexual a union is, anatomically speaking, nothing but one variety of a sterile union and no different even in principle: a woman without a uterus has no more potential for giving birth than a man without a vagina”. Then, Rauch continues, “If the possibility of having children is what gives meaning to marriage, then a postmenopausal woman who applies for a marriage license should be turned away at the courthouse door”. As Rauch declares, procreation can not be the only purpose or goal of marriage. Every time a sterile person, a postmenopausal woman, or an impotent man gets married, it is obvious that they are not going to have children by natural means. Still, there is no opposition to their weddings. Allowing these cases, but denying same-sex marriage is an outrageous act of injustice and a severe violation of the civil and human rights.
Matrimony is a union based on other equally important values, such as love, respect and loyalty. R. Claire Snyder-Hall, Associate Professor of Government and Politics in Political Theory, explained “People who used to imagine that homosexuals must be inordinately driven by sexuality, might come to see that same-sex relationships are about a lot more than just sex; they are also about all the mundane things that heterosexual marriage is about. Having someone to come home to, eating together, doing dishes, keeping house, paying bills, watching TV”. (164, R. Claire Snyder). Love, is an essential emotion for human beings; and marriage is the ultimate expression of it; the commitment of a lifetime with a partner. It is a right that should definitely be extended to all members of society. There are plenty of opinions that differ when it comes to defining the word “marriage”. According to Andrew Sullivan, British author and political commentator, “If marriage is to fulfill its aspirations, it must be defined by the commitment of one to another for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health; and not by the people it excludes” (185, Sullivan). Therefore, marriage is an institution based on love and support for another person, and it should not be denied to any person under any allegation, not even sexual orientation. Sullivan also says “Homosexuals need emotional and economic stability no less than heterosexuals” (184, Sullivan). Denying a homosexual couple the right to marry is telling them that their love is not as good, strong or meaningful as the love between any heterosexual couple.
Not allowing same-sex couples to wed is denigrating them to a lower position where they can not enjoy of the same rights that absolutely any heterosexual person can. This is considering that in the United States, “It is legal for any man to marry: his first cousin in 20 out of 50 states; his ex-lover’s adopted daughter; any single gal he hardly knows on a spontaneous visit to Las Vegas; the day after his divorce is final; the second his 20th divorce is final, even if he is impotent, at the age of 100 (and to leave his state tax-free to his 18 year-old wife); if he is in prison for rape, multiple murders, child molestation, kidnapping, or corporate scandal; and even another man in Texas (as long as that man is a female-to-male transsexual)”. (94, Kotulski). If all this kinds of abominations are not obstacles for a person to become legally married, then sexual orientation should not be one either. If a criminal is not denied the right to join another person in matrimony, just the fact that a person is gay can not be reason enough to stop them from practicing the right all people should have as members of society. People against the legalization of homosexual marriage, state that the institution has been being degraded this past century, and that the permission of gay matrimony would put even more in jeopardy the institution that is already in danger. In truth, some very strong arguments have been given about the real influence of gay marriage inside the current society. David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, quotes Jonathan Rauch saying “Legalizing same-sex matrimony would shore up marriage’s unique but eroding status as the preferred structure for two people who want to build a life together. Gay marriage would strengthen marriage by making it more universal, broadening its influence, and thus signalling society’s clear preference for marriage over cohabitation. By reinforcing marriage’s normative status, gay marriage might slow or even help reverse the current drift toward non-marital cohabitation”. (129-130, Blankenhorn). Evidently, the legalization of homosexual marriage would open the doors for the growing gay population, and would encourage people to opt for the choice of matrimony instead of cohabitation. Moreover, gay marriage would make the institution more just. It would be a victory for the Declaration of Human Rights that states that all people are deservers of all privileges. Also, according to Rauch, “Many Americans, specially young Americans, view marriage as an outdated and illiberal institution, in part because laws currently exclude same-sex couples. Changing those laws to permit gay marriage would improve marriage’s public image” (129, Blankenhorn). Following, Blankenhorn sums “For these reasons, gay marriage would not only be good for individuals, but also be good for marriage as a social institution” (130, Blankenhorn). Certainly, the final permission of same-sex marriages all over the world would change the way a lot of people see the institution; it would make it more modern, therefore, more accepted and wanted by the population. Over the years, there have been cases were heterosexuals, but pro gay marriage individuals, have rejected the option of marriage because they visualize it as a socially archaic institution; based on conservative standards and non progressive statuses. Nevertheless, if gay marriage is approved, it would be a progressive step on behalf of the entire social community which might change people’s minds about the importance of matrimony.
David Brooks, columnist of The New York Times, 2003 clearly stated “The conservative course is not to banish people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We should not just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity” (198, Sullivan). Indeed, marriage is a social union that is made to emphasize the love for another person, and this union should be encouraged in all members of society. It should not be a matter of dispute and discussion. Apart from the social and political aspects of this subject, the most important one, and yet the biggest reason why gay marriage should be approved worldwide, relies on the financial feature. Some benefits and rights are only available to legally married couples, therefore, homosexuals can not enjoy these. According to Paul Nyhan, journalist. “Marriage offers tangible benefits, such as lower tax burdens during breakups and easier estate planning, which committed gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered partners strive to duplicate” (www.seattlepi.com, Nyhan). The fact that gay people are not able to wed, excludes them from reducing their taxes, having a say when their partners pass away, enjoying their partner’s health care or insurance, enjoying family leave from work when their partners are sick, and even from receiving inheritance. According to Davina Kotulski, Ph. D, “Gay couples –whether or not they are registered domestic partners- pay inheritance taxes on their partners’ state. Heterosexual married couples are exempt. They also pay death taxes because they are legal strangers to our life partners. No gay or lesbian in a committed relationship can file as “head of household” on his or her federal or state income tax form. They can’t claim exemptions for our non-biological children, unless they have gone through a lengthy second parent adoption. And they get taxed extra on their domestic partners’ health insurance benefits” (38, Kotulski). Even if a same-sex couple has been together for a long time, the can not claim for any of the rights that heterosexuals have. Is this fair? In addition, social security benefits are available for straight people even after a couple has divorced; gays, do not receive anything, not even while they are a couple. Kotulski says again, “This (benefits paid by Social Security to widows and widowers after the death of their spouses), may cost gay elders $124 million a year in un-accessed benefits. Medicaid regulations protect the assets and homes of married spouses when the other spouse enters a nursing home or long-term care facility; no such protections are offered to same-sex partners” (44, Kotulski). All these millions of dollars denied to people who deserved them just by the fact of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals are equally deservers of all rights. They should obtain the exact same economic benefits that heterosexual couples have; considering that a lot of them carry their lives as committed, loving and devoted couples.
R. Claire Snyder says “If special benefits are going to be available only to married couples, then the opportunity to marry must be available to all citizens” (168, Snyder) . As stated by Snyder, the option to receive all these financial benefits is only handed to married people. Then, the opportunity to get married should be given to all members of society who wish to spend the rest of their lives with the person they love. Marriage is the biggest compromise a person can do to another. It is the most superb expression of commitment and devotion. Matrimony emphasizes everything society needs: respect, loyalty, faithfulness, and most importantly, love. The chance of going under this institution and being represented by all these values should not be denied to anybody. The legalization of gay marriage is a necessary measure; it is a step that society has to take in order to make all individuals equal. On the whole, there are abundant reasons that support this. Firstly, it would honor the Declaration of Human Rights and make all members of humanity alike. Secondly, it would strengthen the meaning of matrimony itself; making it an option available to all people and modernizing it. Finally, the legalization of same-sex marriage would give the chance to couples to enjoy the financial benefits that come with the married status. Marriage is a right. Rights are for everyone. “Marriage is society’s most fundamental institution. To bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation”. Jonathan Rauch (173, Sullivan).

Works Cited
Bidstrup, Scott. “Gay marriage: The arguments and the motives”. 6 Dec 2009 <http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm>.
Blankenhorn, David. The Future of Marriage. New York City: Encounter Books, 2007.
Cichocki, Mark. “Same sex marriages: Should they be sanctioned?” 6 Dec 2009 <http://aids.about.com/cs/socialissues/a/samesex.htm>.
Cline, Austin. “Gay Marriage: Why Is It Good For Gays, Good For Straights, and Good For America”. 15 Dec 2009 <http://atheism.about.com/bookreviews/GayMarriageGood.htm>.
Cloud, John. “The battle over gay marriage”. TIME Magazine 8 Feb 2004: <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,588870-2,00.html>.
Ditchburn, Jennifer. “Ugandan law targeting gays is vile and hateful: minister”. Toronto Star 25 Nov 2009 <http://www.thestar.com/news/canada>.
Eskridge, William N, Jr. Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the Future of Gay Rights. New York City: Routledge, 2002.
Konrad, Walecia. “For Gay Couples, Obstacles to Health Insurance”. The New York Times 8 May 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/health>.
Kotulski, Davina. Why You Should Give A Damn About Gay Marriage. Los Angeles: Advocate Books, 2004.
Leff, Lisa. “Hollow victory for gay marriages”. Toronto Sun 27 May 2009 <http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2009/05/27/9581941-sun.html>.
Nyham, Paul. “The un-marriage tax”. 1 Sept 2009 <http://www.seattlepi.com/business/137418_marriage01.html>.
Robinson, B.A. “Same-sex marriages (SSM), civil unions and domestic partnerships”. 16 Aug 2009 <http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm>.
Snyder, R. Claire. Gay Marriage and Democracy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.
Sparks, Richard. “What the Church teaches about homosexuality”. <http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm>.
Sullivan, Andrew. Same-Sex Marriage: Pro & Con. New York City: Vintage Books, 2004.

Cited: Blankenhorn, David. The Future of Marriage. New York City: Encounter Books, 2007. Eskridge, William N, Jr. Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the Future of Gay Rights. New York City: Routledge, 2002. Kotulski, Davina. Why You Should Give A Damn About Gay Marriage. Los Angeles: Advocate Books, 2004. Leff, Lisa Snyder, R. Claire. Gay Marriage and Democracy. Lanham: Rowman &amp; Littlefield Publishers, 2006. Sullivan, Andrew. Same-Sex Marriage: Pro &amp; Con. New York City: Vintage Books, 2004.