On July 24th, 2011, same sex marriage was legalised in New York State after the vote on the matter was approved 33 to 29 by the Senate. Though many Republicans ceded and voted "yes" on the bill that allowed for Adam to marry Steve, they have, at the same time, been desperately fighting for the protection of religious institutes from being forced to marry the same-sex couples. Though the article was mostly a celebration of how the gay community had come back from its crippling defeat in 2009 and has now made same sex marriage legal in one of the most symbolic states (city more like, New York) in the world, it does bring up the issue that surrounds the question of gay marriage in general.
The very first issues that comes up is language. As one of the few Democratic opponents mentioned, “God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago.” (Rubén Díaz Sr.) I make this point not (necessarily) because I believe that marriage is defined as a holy union of a man and a woman sanctioned by the name of God, but because this viewpoint is one that exists (and has been practiced in North America and Europe for quite some time). The definition of marriage varies greatly between people of different time periods, societies, and cultural backgrounds. Same sex unions have existed as far back as the Ancient Greeks while certain groups and cultures practice polygamy and polyandry while there exist as well a minority of people who are legally married to animals or inanimate objects as well. The one-man-one-woman definition, though common and more widely accepted in today's world, is certainly not the only one. Right now, across the United States, the definition of marriage is being questioned. Opponents of gay marriage often cite that the definition of a marriage is a union between a man and a woman, stating that two women or two men entering matrimony would make (to them) no logical sense. Proponents of same-sex marriage have argued that the definition of marriage is ever changing and that prior to 1967, the definition of a marriage in the United States also concerned the matter of whether or not the people in question were of the same race. The very most fundamental question that comes up here is: who gets to decide on the definition of marriage?
In 2008, California also underwent a debate of the dilemma mentioned above a la Proposition 8, where the state petitioned to change the definition of marriage back to including only heterosexual unions. After Proposition 8 passed, Perry v. Schwarzenegger challenged the ballot's results as unconstitutional, essentially saying that just because a large amount of people say something is so does not make it so. On the other hand, what Rubén Díaz Sr. is asserting is that the government should not have the right to change the definition of marriage.
The struggle between the government and the individual also appears in this instance with the issue of whether or not religious institutions should be forced to sanctify same-sex marriages in New York. The First Amendment was created to prevent religious intolerance and the favouring of one faith over another. On this basis, religions that are against same-sex marriages should not be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples wanting to get married because if they were, then it would be akin to religious favouritism. However, at the same time the Amendment also goes the other way to protect the rights of those religious groups not wanting to marry the same-sex couples because it is against what they believe. So then what? The Marriage Equality Act supported protecting the rights of the religious institutions in this case, but that's just the result of the legislation and not necessarily the best solution to the issue at hand.
Everything boils down to the idea of individual rights versus the rights of the masses and the power of the government and the rights of the masses. I differentiate between the two due to a subtle nuance in idea. For individuals versus the masses, it's the question of to what extent should individual rights be protected against the will of the larger community. Individuals do have rights, but at what point do these rights need to be compromised on in order to maintain the welfare of the majority? For the masses versus the government, it’s the question of definition. Who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Who decides what is and is not? Should the power to define lie in the hands of the selected few (who are trusted to make the right decision), or the many who are actually affected by the outcome? If the government were given free reign over defining things and making decisions, society would instantly become (even more of) a reflection of Orwellian dystopia (than it already is). But if the masses were to decide, then society would be governed by mob rule and those not in the majority will never be safe.
In this instance, I do agree with New York's decision to legalise gay marriage as well as protect religious institutions from being sued should they not want to hold services because I do not believe that the change of the definition of marriage in this instance will directly harm any of the religious institutions that are so fundamentally against same-sex marriage. As for protecting said organisations, even though I agree with same-sex marriage, it's still necessary to protect and respect the opinion of those who do not. However, for that to work, there should also be a distinction between a marriage sanctioned by the religious institution in question and by the state of New York.
This issue also relates to California's petition to outlaw performing circumcision on minors (though there are some technical differences, since it does involve a controversial procedure that can easily go awry), where it's honestly a question of who gets to choose what is right and whether or not the protection of individual rights are overstepping its bounds. It's the eternal question of how far are we allowed to push our individual rights before it infringes upon those of others and whether or not the masses should have the power to govern. Either way there is no right answer and the best course of action would probably be to tread softly and try to hurt as few people as possible in the process.
image source: http://www.helyn.com/lesbian_wedding_cake_toppers.htm
article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/gay-marriage-approved-by-new-york-senate.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
This topic is a widely known and controversial issue, and most people have developed their own views on it. It is very interesting to me as I do not see why people are so opposed to something that really doesn't affect them personally. Your post is very well developed and easy to comprehend.
ReplyDeleteIn the first paragraph, you mentioned religion preventing gay marriage. I don't think religious beliefs should play a role in this issue because many people are of a certain religion but do not follow all the "rules" or have the same morals as others of the same religion. Take Christianity for example, God is all about acceptance, of every kind of person in the world. Christianity allows people to attend masses and pray regularly, but does not force this upon anyone of the religion. Priests were also required to practice celibacy in the past. However, the rules are now different. I have friends whose father's are revered priests, which makes the celibacy rule invalid. This shows the freedom of Christianity as a religion for its followers. There is no rule that every small rule has to be adhered to, and I believe that gay marriage should be treated the same way in religion. If someone Christian wants to have a gay marriage, so be it. They should not have to be subjects of criticism for not adhering to religious beliefs and morals as these not only change but also contradict other beliefs. As Christians, what people should really be doing is to work on acceptance of others as one of the most widely used verses is "love your neighbors as you love yourself". There is no exception mentioned in the verse stating that if the neighbors have differing beliefs that you should treat them with less respect. I believe that New York is on the right path in granting permission to gay marriage, which should be a right and not a privilege.
It is interesting how you mentioned the definition of marriage in God’s perspective; however, I do not think that religion should play such a huge role against same sex marriage. As we all know, in the 21st century, the definition of marriage no longer restrains to religious ideas, instead, the definition is generalized. Personally, the definition of marriage is the symbol of loyalty between a couple who shares eternal love and care for each other. Notice, everyone has a different definition of love, however, that doesn’t mean that one should apply his/her definition on others. In other words, whatever definition that you come up with defining the term marriage, it will only apply to you and your spouse, not to anyone else. Therefore, the fundamental question that is mentioned in the article, “who gets to decide on the definition of marriage” does not matter that much anymore. As a human being who holds rights to have a freedom of speech, I do not believe that the definition of marriage should be legalized through any sort of government institution; instead, the definition of marriage can vary in many different forms based on your own perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think that the best point you make is the dichotomy between religion and the government. Although the state may have dictated that gay marriage is between two individuals whereas religion says that it is between a man and a woman. I think that individuals should have the right to marry who they wish. However, society is known to be uncompromising and unwelcoming towards new ideas. I think when these individuals have gone against what we consider the 'norm' and have announced that they are gay, they have the right to a marriage. It is a little contradicting of Ruben Diaz Sr to say that gay marriage is going against God's definition of marriage because it can be argued that God meant for the gay population to be gay. I think 3R!C makes a good point by pointing out that marriage between people of different races was, at one point, considered to be illegitimate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Monica S in that religion should be put aside when this topic is discussed because there're religions that accepts homosexual individuals when the "rules" don't induce them to do so. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Some may look at this passage and settle with the conclusion that homosexuality is a sin and should be condemned. But as Monica S said, God is also accepting of everything loves us for who we are, sinners. But there are also, many branches of Christianity. Being a protestant Christian myself, I was brought up to believe that homosexuality is a sin and not something natural but I believe that as human beings, the least we can do is to respect other people's choices and love them for who they are. And the Bible also says that, above all else, "the greatest of all is love." Anybody can take these passages and interpret them the way they want, and that is where the controversy lies, but if we can choose to love and accept as opposed to object and bash, which one would you choose?
ReplyDeleteOne other thing I want to comment on is the Paragraph #3, where the author of this blog says that, "After Proposition 8 passed, Perry v. Schwarzenegger challenged the ballot's results as unconstitutional, essentially saying that just because a large amount of people say something is so does not make it so."In Practice, democracy is governed by its most popularly understood rule: majority rule, thus, when it is said that "the people have spoken" or the "people's will should be respected," the people are generally expressed through its majority. Since the United States of America is a democratic state, then where does the argument lie when Schwarzenegger gets up and announces that when ballots are drawn and the Supreme Court rules in favor or the majority, it's unconstitutional?