Friday, November 9, 2007

Gay Marriage: The Romantic and the Legalities


In class Wednesday we discussed the ever blazing topic of gay marriage. The issue that seemed to concern many students though was what aspects of marriage were we really discussing, the romantic or the legal? This is an issue of valid concern because it becomes necessary when things like civil unions come into the conversation, where the gay community can get the legal recognition in which they seek, but then the spiritual and romantic aspect is revoked. It is also very necessary to remember that the two facets are indeed intertwined though which is what causes many of the issues facing long term gay commitments today. The legal system has basically said that they will approve the legal facet but they cannot approve the spiritual aspect.

The world of spirituality is not yet ready to condone what gay couples do as "holy." A better way of of looking at it in a larger scope though is that is gay marriage is approved it will be placing a stamp on homosexuality as right. It is this that truly sits as unacceptable in most people's eyes. To allow gays to marry it is basically saying that two of the same sex can support a family just as well as a heterosexual couple, that two of the same sex can love one another in the same ways that a male and a female can, and most importantly in the spiritual aspect, that the sacred bond by the first couple, Adam and Eve, could have the same sacredness as say Eve and Elizabeth. This causes profound complications also because of the pure biological stance that men and women are the clear pair because they can create life, which if supposedly the most sacred of all.

Besides the completely erroneous claim about gays are unfit because they cannot make children, which is usually the end to the argument, because there is no true reason why a nonprocreative relationship is bad, what really IS so bad about nonprocreative relationships? People who even dare speak of the world's population dying due to gay people just spew ignorance because it is clear that there are not going be enough gay relationships in the world to ever cause that. Also these relationships since they are nonprocreative by nature open up more chances for the hundreds of thousands of children who don't have parents to be adopted into loving families that they would normally not have. Though the reasons are fairly simplistic and seemingly not hard to get over, there is just something about the notion of a gay couple that most people just cannot shake, thus continuing the ever steep uphill battle.


If all of the real angst comes from the spiritual aspect of gay marriage why weren't civil unions approved long ago? In that case, why is it that common law marriage does not apply to gays? The situation itself has nothing to do with getting married or it is simply the ability to recognize that two people have been together for a long period of time and built a life together therefore they most likely to have some stake in each other's possessions upon death or injury. In all aspects it would seem that the government would most normally apply such an instance to gay couples because they cannot officially get married.

In the end it all returns to the fact that the legal and spiritual aspects though CAN be thought about and discussed separately, they are still a delicately intertwined entity that whenever separated still some way bleed into one another. If a gay couple were to happen to find a priest that would perform the ceremony for them to join them in matrimony, they then have the issue of dealing with how they can have the government officially recognize their marriage. Then conversely if civil unions were made legal, gays would have most, not all of the same rights, but then they still don't have the gratification of marriage, it is just a union. This issue will never be resolved, because even if gays get the full right of marriage, the heterosexual community will still be in up in arms about it for years to come. In the end can this war ever be won?

No comments: