Fair Play for the Gays

  Marriage is a human right. Since when have we been able to tell people who they can and cannot marry? What does this say to you? That strait people are the only ones allowed happiness and gays are destined to be unhappy and alone for the rest of their lives? Homosexuals and heterosexuals, there is little difference between them. Even just looking at the word! Homo and hetero, yeah a giant difference that points out that person as normal and this person as a freak. This is not the sort of world that we should be living in, where people can’t be comfortable with themselves and their beliefs.  Gay marriage should be allowed in the USA.

            Marriage and a partnership is not the same thing no matter how you look at it. When a homosexual couples enter a civil partnership they are still not given all the rights that a heterosexual couples get in a marriage. So not only are they not allowed to be married they are also barred off from certain rights that heterosexual couples have. For instance a homosexual COUPLE may not adopt a child together. This seems strange to me because a homosexual single is allowed to adopt a child. How exactly is this fair to the children that are waiting to be adopted and also to the couple who want to adopt. It is craziness and it is discriminatory against homosexual pairs. Another issue in a legal regard that pertains to this issue is that medically the couples are also being treated unfairly. When in a marriage if either the husband or wife gets injured then the partner is allowed to legally go and see them and has a right to pick up any items that the person had on them. In a partnership the partner is not allowed to go see the person in the hospital because they are not considered family, but also they have no claim to their partner’s objects. This is extremely unfair to both the partner who is in the hospital and the person who is not allowed to go see them. Imagine if it was you in the hospital and the person you loved and were dyeing to see was not allowed to see you and then you found out that they were also not allowed to collect your things. That would make anyone angry if not also a little sad. This has to stop and things need to be turned around and made fairer.

            Most religions are discriminatory toward homosexual couples. Catholic churches can refuse to marry them if they don’t agree with the marriage. Most states are against same sex couples being married. If the state does not agree than that means that the churches that marry people don’t agree with them either. That means that around the world most homosexuals cannot be married to each other. This is discriminatory and it seems to be saying that because you are different than you don’t belong, you don’t fit in to the moral standards we put up. But this is simply not true, if someone really truly loves someone else than why are we trying to stop them from being together? By doing this we are lowering our own morality and causing ourselves harm. Another reason churches won’t allow gay marriage is because they believe that it is destroying “traditional values”.  How is raising a child who will grow up to make their own decisions about who they are hurting traditional values. If anything it is probably going to help traditional values! If children grow up and decide they are strait, they can feel like they made that decision on their own. Children can feel more independent about making life decisions as they get older. If we would allow same sex couples to adopt than adoption rates would probably go up, giving many children homes that they need. We need to change what we are doing to help ourselves.

            Lastly same sex couples are being denied there right to the pursuit of happiness. The constitution states that no person may retrain other people from there pursuit of happiness. If we are indeed not supposed to do this than why are we stopping people from being happy? By not allowing a same sex couple to marry we are denying them that right. Also in amendment 14 is says that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States. I would say that marring the person you love is a privilege and that we are indeed abridging these rights. Not only are we saying no to their rights, but to their happiness as well. Think about the person you love and perhaps may one day marry. Now imagine how you would feel if you were told that you were not allowed to be together with them. Yes that would break anyone’s heart, but the saddest part is that this is breaking hearts and we are not doing anything about it.

            This is my voice and here is what I say. We need to change what we are doing about this issue. Allowing same sex couples to marry is only a small portion of what we should be doing. They have now been oppressed and called freaks for to long. We need to allow them the same rights as any other couple who is married, straight or gay. We need to allow them to adopt children as a couple and let them take care of that child without questioning the “traditional values” that seem to be floating everywhere. We need change now, so what are you going to do about it?

Same sex marriage the view debate

My interview

I interviewed Corrine Mertz, president of the website Outright Vermont. We talked over the phone on April 1st 2011. I started off by asking her about what her thoughts on if life for same sex couples might get easier as we progress into the future. She responded with "It's hard to say. In five hundred yes. Short term time wise probably a little rougher . But long term I think life will get easier for them." Corrine was a good source of information and her opinions were very interesting to me and gave me a lot to think about. Another question I asked was about how communities might change when same sex marriage was allowed. She told me that she knew that her communities had always been very accepting of same sex couples. As for communities that were not so allowing to same sex couples, we can't make them change there minds or there opinions, but in all it is a step in the process of accepting. She had a strong viewpoint and was very clear with her beliefs. I thought that the interview went well and she was very kind and didn't intimidate me at all.

Stakeholders

For the issue of same sex marriage the views of the two separate parties, meaning those for same sex marriage and those against same sex marriage, the issue is extremely controversial.

View points:

Pro: People who believe that same sex marriage should be allowed have found many different ways to argue for there beliefs. One of these arguments is based around same sex couples having the same rights as a strait couple has. People who say that same sex couples should be allowed argue that if they were allowed to marry and have the same rights adoption rates would go up, giving children homes that they need. But on the same note marriage is not only considered a social status, but also a legal one, so for people not to be allowed this because they are the same sex seems unreasonable. In a legal regard for marriage this gives you things such as taxes or joint ownership, plus it can affect the way people are going to be treated medically. For example say that one of the partners in a same sex relationship comes down with an illness that turns nasty and has to be emitted to a hospital. The other healthy partner in the relationship may not be allowed to go see there partner because they are not related to them or in this case because they are not family.

Con: People who are against same sex marriage are able to find many arguments that counter peoples who are for it. But probably the most well known argument in all of these is that same sex couples are not what god intended or they are against religious views. The majority of religions in our country do not allow same sex couples to be together. Basically people view it as a sin to marry a same sex couple and that religion does not want to do anything that might be "sinful" to the religion. Another argument that is used is that same sex marriage will show future generations that traditional family values have no meaning.

Panel Day Reflection

My panelists were Mary Anne Hegeman, Tom Little, and David Zuckerman.

Mary Anne Hegeman a Mormon was a little hesitant in answering questions when she did answer them. She didn't seem too eager to give her opinion on topics when asked about them and she seemed to be very nervous about the interview all together. I think that because she thought she was the only one in the room who was against gay marriage she wanted to protect herself and went into a defensive state. But i do believe that from what i peiced together from what she said that she was against same sex marriage. I was a little dissapointed that she didn't answer with her opion on the matter and seemed to say that god was the answer for everthing. This in itself was pretty dissapointing because being someone who does not really have a religon as of now i thought it was frustrating that she didnt really want to talk for herdelf and thought that god had all the answers. Not that she can't believe that god will come someday with Jesus and rule us all, if thats what she wants to believe, but i think that she should look at what god stands for not just to herself. God is suppose to be a loving spirit or something and if he really is that understanding why would he be agiainst gay marriage?

Tom Little a lawyer and former legislator would answer questions from a legal standpoint. His opinion didn't seem to come out in his answers to the questions. He would talk more about the laws and other legal things that surrounded the issue. What I would say is he may not totally agree with gay marriage, but seems to be conflicted between agreeing with gay marriage and not agreeing with it. He just hasn't made up his mind about it and he didn't want to tell us that he did or didn't agree with it. His information was very... educational, but it lacked almost like heart? Well I don't know if that’s the right word to use, but it seemed to be lacking enough to keep me satisfied with it. If he had shown just a tad more of his own opinion or interest in the topic I think his information would have been extremely helpful. In all I felt that he was good at informing us on the legal area of the topic, but not so great on the opinion part.

David Zuckerman currently a veggitable farmer was a former reprisentitive for Chittenden County gave the best answers when it came to opinions. He seemed to be pro same sex marriage and i liked it when he answered the questions. He really tried to answer them as best he could and gave his opininon as well. He was a great person to interview because he was not afraid to say what he thought as well as look at the isuue from others points of veiw and even agreeing with the other painelist when he thought there answers were better than his.

Interveiws

1. Outright Vermont: Corrine Mertz, Youth Coordinator  Corrine@outrightvt.org
2.  Freedom to Marry
3. Hutington church

Court Cases

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, was a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a U.S. state's highest court to say that same-sex couples had the right to marry.

Case

On April 11, 2001  Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders or GLAD sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 200. Each of the couples had been in long term relationships with each other and several had children. The Department's responsibilities included setting policies under which city and town clerks issue marriage licenses, The Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the Department on May 7, 2002, and the plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Ruling

In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." The court gave the State Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate" before issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Baker v. Vermont was handed down on December 20, 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court. The decision represented one of the first high-level judicial affirmations of same-sex couples' right to treatment equivalent to that of traditionally married couples.

Case

The case was brought by three same-sex couples who applied for and were denied marriage licenses in the towns of Milton, Shelburne and South Burlington. The couples subsequently sued their respective towns, and the state of Vermont, requesting a declaratory judgment that the license refusal violated Vermont's marriage statutes and Constitution.  The state, along with two of the towns, moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that no relief could be legally granted for the plaintiffs' grievances. The trial court, located in Chittenden County, granted the defendants' motion, ruling additionally that the marriage statutes could not be construed to allow same-sex marriages, and that the statutes were constitutional because they served the public interest by promoting "the link between procreation and child rearing".

Ruling

The unanimous decision found that existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage were a violation of rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. As a result, the Vermont legislature was ordered to either allow same-sex marriages, or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights. In 2000, the Legislature complied by instituting civil unions for same-sex couples.