Marriage Equality

For easy future reference, I've decided to put up the information I used for my presentation on marriage equality for my Social Problems in American Society class.

The state of affairs in the U.S.:

-Five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire) and Washington D.C. allow gay marriage.
-Two states (Rhode Island and New York) recognize gay marriages performed out of state.
-Eight states (New Jersey, California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, and Wisconsin) allow civil unions.
-Of the 8 states that allow civil unions, only New Jersey gives couples in civil unions the same rights as those in civil marriages.  California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington give civil unions most of the rights given to civil marriages.  Hawaii, Maine, and Wisconsin give them only some of the same rights.  

DOMA: 

The  Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) states that :
1) No state  (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. 
2) The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

This gave the states free reign to decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriages.  It also denies same-sex couples that are legally married all of the federal rights afforded to heterosexual married couples.

Rights currently being denied to gay couples:

There are over 1,000 federal rights that accompany civil marriage, as well as around 300 provided by each individual state.  Even if the state allows gay marriage, gay couples will still be denied their federal rights, thanks to DOMA.  These rights include but are not limited to:

• making medical, legal, and financial decisions for the partner
• hospital visitation
• inheritance without a will
• suing for wrongful death and/or emotional distress if the partner dies or is injured
• drafting a will or trust for the partner
• paid leave or sick time to care for ill partner or partner's child
• unemployment insurance if one has to relocate due to the partner's job
• health insurance under the partner's plan
• death benefits for surviving partner and children
• leave of absence after death of the partner 
• right to live with the partner in senior citizen housing developments
• filing jointly on taxes
• sponsoring a partner for citizenship
• holding both partners as equal parents
• child support and custody
• conjugal visits to the partner in prison
• right to use necessary force to prevent partner from wrongful injury
• right not to be forced to testify against partner in court
• ability to authorize medical treatment of partner's biological child  

Most people (gay or straight) don't think about these rights until something goes wrong.  These rights were crafted to protect and support the spouse when something happens to the partner.  That means these rights are called upon in times of great emotional, and sometimes financial, need.  These are the rights being denied to same-sex couples daily.

Who else (besides the couple) does this affect?:

-Children of the same-sex couple.  Many psychological studies have shown that children raised by two parents of the same gender do not have any major differences in developmental outcomes than those raised by two heterosexual parents.  They do, however, face prejudice and homophobia from peers and adults due to their homosexual parents.  They also do not have the same protection under the law that children of married couples do.  They face the possibility of being separated from their surviving parent if the biological parent dies and they haven't filed for adoption.  They also face loss of income, benefits, insurance, and even sometimes the right to the home they live in.

-Gay children.  Gay children are affected by this issue because they are being told, directly or indirectly, that they are not the same as everyone else and that they don't deserve the same happiness and protection under the law that straight people receive.

-Society as a whole is hugely affected by this issue.  This is one of the most polarizing issues in the public arena at the moment.  Some people judge others based on what they believe about gay marriage in a way that they don't for other issues.  Some people vote for political leaders based largely on their views of gay marriage, often neglecting other important aspects about these politicians.  Since gay marriage is such a huge issue, it takes up quite a bit of the public's caring capacity, and as such other important issues often don't get the attention they deserve.

This is a matter of basic human rights.

It is not a question of religious morality v immorality.  In America, not everyone is required to follow the rules of one religion.  Therefore, what any particular holy book or religion has to say about homosexuality is inconsequential when deciding who gets protection under the law.

It is not a question of tradition.  The definition of marriage has changed over the years.  Marriage used to be (and still is in some cases and certain parts of the world) used for:

• political purposes
• improving one's social status
• improving one's economic status 
• procreation (and only procreation)
• certainty as to the paternity of the children 
• the subjugation of women
• family obligation  

It used to be (and still is in some cases/parts of the world) between:

• one man and multiple women 
• one woman and multiple men
• multiple women and multiple men 
• a man and a young girl
• two people who did not meet until their wedding day
• a man and a "mail-order bride" 
• people of the same religion
• people of the same race (side note: interracial marriage wasn't fully legal in the U.S. until 1967)
• people of the same gender (see: early Roman Empire, Ming Dynasty, early Zhou Dynasty) 

Therefore, arguments about "changing the definition of marriage" are invalid.  The definition of marriage has already changed quite a bit.  It's called progress.




Sources:

www.marriageequality.org

National Conference of State Legislatures (www.ncsl.org)

Why You Should Give A Damn About Gay Marriage by Davina Kotulski Ph.D. Superior Court of DC (http://www.dccourts.gov/)
(How) Does The Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? by Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, published in the American Sociological Review (April 2001).   

Mike Huckabee is a bigoted douchebag

Mike Huckabee was interviewed by a student reporter named Michael Tracey at The College of New Jersey.  In the interview, Huckabee said some bigoted things about gay marriage.  Tracey then, gasp, published what Huckabee said in a campus newspaper called The Perspective:

“That would be like saying, well there’s there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?”

 Thanks to the internet, his statements have been widely publicized and criticized, and rightly so.  Huckabee was not pleased.  So how did this Republican presidential candidate reply?  By blaming the reporter, of course.  Huckabee called for the reporter to release the transcript of the interview, which he did.  Huckabee then talked about it on FOX:  (see video)

1) While it's true that Huckabee didn't say that incest and polygamy are the same as homosexuality, HE was the one who brought up incest and polygamy, NOT the reporter, so HE was the one who linked them.  He was the one who put them into the same category ("things I don't believe should be approved of by the U.S. government").  Even if he didn't explicitly say "I think that these things are equal", he was the one who made that link.

2) It's a slippery slope argument.  And a red herring.  They weren't talking about incest and polygamy.  They were talking about gay marriage.  You don't really have much of an argument if the interview goes like this: "So why are you against topic A?"  "Because topic B and C are bad!"  Not only do polygamy and incest have NOTHING AT ALL to do with gay marriage, invoking those topics in the first place shows us that your case against gay marriage isn't strong enough to stand alone.

3) The definition of marriage has ALREADY changed.  He claims to be a Christian.  Has he even read his Bible?  It's not exactly a secret that the bible says the following about marriage:
  a) Women are practically property. (Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Timothy 2:11-14, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
  b) Love has nothing to do with marriage.  You found a hot chick when you killed her family in a war?  Fuck her and marry her!  (Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Exodus 21:7-11, Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30)
   c) Polygamy is fine by God (Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15, Genesis 28:9).  See: King David (2 Samuel 5:13), King Solomon (1 Kings 11:3), Solomon's son (2 Chronicles 11:21), Abraham (Genesis 16:1-3, Genesis 25:1), Jacob (Genesis 29:16-30)

Also, are we forgetting that inter-racial marriage wasn't fully legal here in the U.S. until 1967?  So what was he saying about "changing the definition of marriage"?  History, motherfucker.  Learn it.  Better late than never, even if you did run for president.

4) What is so bad about polygamy?


P.S. He's going to "charge the mound"?  What about turning the other cheek?   How very Christian of him.