Essay: Equal Benefits: Why Marriage For All Couples Is Important
TITLE: Equal Benefits: Why Marriage For All Couples Is Important
SUMMARY: see TITLE.
NOTE: I totally forgot about this. I wrote back in July for my English 102 class and probably aced it.
Fairly recently, 800 same-sex couples lined up in Manhattan alone to get married, says an article on 365gay.com: “Vanasco: Gay couples line up to marry in New York” by Jennifer Vanasco. These people were reveling in the new law, which allowed them to marry. New York is the sixth state in the United States of America to allow same-sex couples to actually get married. Other states either ban all forms of same-sex unions, or allow some benefits in the form of civil unions. According to the National Organization of Women, civil unions protect couples legally, but federal protections, like certain exemptions from taxes and medical leave when a spouse is injured, are omitted. Though domestic partnership recognition and civil unions are great starts at solving the problem of unwed same-sex couples, there are still holes in the benefits a civil union provides, and the only real solution to this is that same-sex marriage should be put into motion, because a man or woman, no matter what orientation he or she leans to, should be able to visit his or her partner in the hospital, have medical leave to care for children, etc. without the complications set up only for same-sex partnerships.
In Olympia, Washington, Christine Gregoire signed House Bill 1649 back in April 2011. This bill acknowledges same-sex marriages in other states as domestic partnerships. The bill made Washington State the fourth state to approve a bill that gives rights to same-sex couples akin to marriage right between a man and a woman. This means Washington State follows Mayland, Rhode Island, and New York (“Washington state approves…”) in a revolution that will change the status of same-sex couples in America. Though this a big step in the process, it is still not enough. Domestic partnerships still do not give the couple equal rights to benefits coveted by heterosexual couples all over America. But it is a start to the process of equality through marriage.
Hypothetically, a same-sex couple is granted the rights to marry their partner of about seven years: the government would grant them “access to military stores, assumption to their spouse’s pension, bereavement leave for the potential death of their partner, immigration, insurance breaks, medical decisions on behalf of partner, sick leave to care for partner, social security survivor benefits, sick leave to care for partner, tax breaks, veteran’s discounts, and visitation of partner in hospital or prison” (Johnson). The state in which the couple is married in would give them other rights, including but not limited to child custody, divorce protections, joint parenting, visitation to partner’s children and joint adoption and foster care (Johnson). With these rights, things would be easier for the couple, leading to a better quality of life, and general happiness of the home.
Those who vote against allowing same-sex marriage argue both religiously and non-religiously. They talk of studies showing that children grow up better with a mother and a father, as well as the religious call that “the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Corinthians 6:9). While these arguments are clearly backed up either by faith or science, other scientists talk of growing up in a loving and fairly domestic household, and several studies on same-sex parents vs. traditional heterosexual parents show that there is no difference from family to family in how children grow up (Little). As for the religious angle, there is only faith to back those arguments up, and that is a slippery slope even for non-believers.
There has also been the argument that “[m]arriage has always been understood as the union of one man and one woman” (Staver, qtd by Jost). This argument against same-sex marriage is typically referred to as the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. While the statement is true, the people against same-sex marriage are using an appeal to tradition, and times are changing. As the world enters a new millennium, more people are coming out as part of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, finding others like them, and coupling up. It is only fair that these people gain equality as people, and same-sex marriage would be the first step to becoming a social norm just like heterosexual people.
As the National Organization for Women states, civil unions are legal stand-ins for marriage between same-sex couples only. They offer no other rights but legal status to the state that the ones who hold the union are a couple. There are no federal rights attached, like Worker’s Compensation and Social Security benefits upon death or retirement of the spouse. Often is the case that a civil union in one state is not recognized in another, and all legal benefits, no matter how sparse, are not recognized then, and the couple is back to square one of being in just a domestic relationship with no benefits: legal or federal. Marriage, on the other hand, brings all federal rights granted to heterosexual couples upon marriage, and the marriage would carry on to other states. It is not fair that one type of couple can get married and have marriage rights and another type be given their own special union, only to be cheated of any rights that the family might have been provided.
In an article titled “Maryland Governor Supports Gay Marriage Proposal In 2012”, Blair Mishleau reports that the Maryland governor, Martin O’Malley, is putting a same-sex marriage bill into play almost immediately in the 2012 legislative session. Because O’Malley was originally for civil unions and against marriage for same-sex couples, it is interesting to understand why he changed his mind: for the children. With the benefits of marriage, about a quarter of them pertain to children (Johnson). O’Malley refers to the children of committed same-sex couples: “At the end of the day, I think all of us need to look at this issue from the eyes of children of gay, committed couples and ask ourselves how one family could be protected less in the eyes of the law than another family . . . I don’t think that’s an injustice that can be allowed to stand” (qtd in Mishleau). The children in these partnerships would also be another reason to allow same-sex couples to marry and get the benefits they, as well as their children, deserve.
In conclusion, though civil unions are a fine institution, it is only the beginning. Both sides are fighting valiantly for what they believe, but as Obama even states, “I think what you're seeing is a profound recognition on the part of the American people that gays and lesbians and transgender persons are our brothers, our sisters, our children, our cousins, our friends, our co-workers, and that they've got to be treated like every other American” (qtd in Stolberg). Same-sex marriage is not just about the marriage aspect, it is further ensuring that all people are created equal. Not too long ago, there was a ban on interracial marriage. Now it’s time to make Americans equal again by taking away the same-sex marriage ban.
Works Cited
“Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage.” Web. 25 July 2011.
“Civil Marriage vs. Civil Unions.” National Organization for Women. Web. 24 July 2011.
Johnson, Ramon. “Gay Marriage Benefits.” About.com. Web. 26 July 2011.
Jost, Kenneth. Gay marriage showdowns. CQ Researcher, 18, 769-792. 36 September 2008.
Web. 24 July 2011.
Little, Linda. “Children of Same-Sex Couples Do as Well as Other Children.” Medscape Today: News.13 October 2005. Web. 24 July 2011.
Mishleau, Blair. “Maryland Governor Supports Gay Marriage Proposal In 2012.” 365gay.com.
22 July 2011. Web. 24 July 2011.
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. "Obama Moves Near 'Greater Equality' on Gay Marriage." New York
Times 30 June 2011: 16. Newspaper Source Plus. EBSCO. Web. 24 July 2011.
"Washington state approves same-sex rights." UPI Top News (2011): Newspaper Source Plus.
EBSCO. Web. 24 July 2011.
Vanasco, Jennifer. “Vanasco: Gay couples line up to marry in New York.” 365gay.com. 24 July
2011. Web. 25 July 2011.
SUMMARY: see TITLE.
NOTE: I totally forgot about this. I wrote back in July for my English 102 class and probably aced it.
Fairly recently, 800 same-sex couples lined up in Manhattan alone to get married, says an article on 365gay.com: “Vanasco: Gay couples line up to marry in New York” by Jennifer Vanasco. These people were reveling in the new law, which allowed them to marry. New York is the sixth state in the United States of America to allow same-sex couples to actually get married. Other states either ban all forms of same-sex unions, or allow some benefits in the form of civil unions. According to the National Organization of Women, civil unions protect couples legally, but federal protections, like certain exemptions from taxes and medical leave when a spouse is injured, are omitted. Though domestic partnership recognition and civil unions are great starts at solving the problem of unwed same-sex couples, there are still holes in the benefits a civil union provides, and the only real solution to this is that same-sex marriage should be put into motion, because a man or woman, no matter what orientation he or she leans to, should be able to visit his or her partner in the hospital, have medical leave to care for children, etc. without the complications set up only for same-sex partnerships.
In Olympia, Washington, Christine Gregoire signed House Bill 1649 back in April 2011. This bill acknowledges same-sex marriages in other states as domestic partnerships. The bill made Washington State the fourth state to approve a bill that gives rights to same-sex couples akin to marriage right between a man and a woman. This means Washington State follows Mayland, Rhode Island, and New York (“Washington state approves…”) in a revolution that will change the status of same-sex couples in America. Though this a big step in the process, it is still not enough. Domestic partnerships still do not give the couple equal rights to benefits coveted by heterosexual couples all over America. But it is a start to the process of equality through marriage.
Hypothetically, a same-sex couple is granted the rights to marry their partner of about seven years: the government would grant them “access to military stores, assumption to their spouse’s pension, bereavement leave for the potential death of their partner, immigration, insurance breaks, medical decisions on behalf of partner, sick leave to care for partner, social security survivor benefits, sick leave to care for partner, tax breaks, veteran’s discounts, and visitation of partner in hospital or prison” (Johnson). The state in which the couple is married in would give them other rights, including but not limited to child custody, divorce protections, joint parenting, visitation to partner’s children and joint adoption and foster care (Johnson). With these rights, things would be easier for the couple, leading to a better quality of life, and general happiness of the home.
Those who vote against allowing same-sex marriage argue both religiously and non-religiously. They talk of studies showing that children grow up better with a mother and a father, as well as the religious call that “the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Corinthians 6:9). While these arguments are clearly backed up either by faith or science, other scientists talk of growing up in a loving and fairly domestic household, and several studies on same-sex parents vs. traditional heterosexual parents show that there is no difference from family to family in how children grow up (Little). As for the religious angle, there is only faith to back those arguments up, and that is a slippery slope even for non-believers.
There has also been the argument that “[m]arriage has always been understood as the union of one man and one woman” (Staver, qtd by Jost). This argument against same-sex marriage is typically referred to as the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. While the statement is true, the people against same-sex marriage are using an appeal to tradition, and times are changing. As the world enters a new millennium, more people are coming out as part of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, finding others like them, and coupling up. It is only fair that these people gain equality as people, and same-sex marriage would be the first step to becoming a social norm just like heterosexual people.
As the National Organization for Women states, civil unions are legal stand-ins for marriage between same-sex couples only. They offer no other rights but legal status to the state that the ones who hold the union are a couple. There are no federal rights attached, like Worker’s Compensation and Social Security benefits upon death or retirement of the spouse. Often is the case that a civil union in one state is not recognized in another, and all legal benefits, no matter how sparse, are not recognized then, and the couple is back to square one of being in just a domestic relationship with no benefits: legal or federal. Marriage, on the other hand, brings all federal rights granted to heterosexual couples upon marriage, and the marriage would carry on to other states. It is not fair that one type of couple can get married and have marriage rights and another type be given their own special union, only to be cheated of any rights that the family might have been provided.
In an article titled “Maryland Governor Supports Gay Marriage Proposal In 2012”, Blair Mishleau reports that the Maryland governor, Martin O’Malley, is putting a same-sex marriage bill into play almost immediately in the 2012 legislative session. Because O’Malley was originally for civil unions and against marriage for same-sex couples, it is interesting to understand why he changed his mind: for the children. With the benefits of marriage, about a quarter of them pertain to children (Johnson). O’Malley refers to the children of committed same-sex couples: “At the end of the day, I think all of us need to look at this issue from the eyes of children of gay, committed couples and ask ourselves how one family could be protected less in the eyes of the law than another family . . . I don’t think that’s an injustice that can be allowed to stand” (qtd in Mishleau). The children in these partnerships would also be another reason to allow same-sex couples to marry and get the benefits they, as well as their children, deserve.
In conclusion, though civil unions are a fine institution, it is only the beginning. Both sides are fighting valiantly for what they believe, but as Obama even states, “I think what you're seeing is a profound recognition on the part of the American people that gays and lesbians and transgender persons are our brothers, our sisters, our children, our cousins, our friends, our co-workers, and that they've got to be treated like every other American” (qtd in Stolberg). Same-sex marriage is not just about the marriage aspect, it is further ensuring that all people are created equal. Not too long ago, there was a ban on interracial marriage. Now it’s time to make Americans equal again by taking away the same-sex marriage ban.
Works Cited
“Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage.” Web. 25 July 2011.
“Civil Marriage vs. Civil Unions.” National Organization for Women. Web. 24 July 2011.
Johnson, Ramon. “Gay Marriage Benefits.” About.com. Web. 26 July 2011.
Jost, Kenneth. Gay marriage showdowns. CQ Researcher, 18, 769-792. 36 September 2008.
Web. 24 July 2011.
Little, Linda. “Children of Same-Sex Couples Do as Well as Other Children.” Medscape Today: News.13 October 2005. Web. 24 July 2011.
Mishleau, Blair. “Maryland Governor Supports Gay Marriage Proposal In 2012.” 365gay.com.
22 July 2011. Web. 24 July 2011.
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. "Obama Moves Near 'Greater Equality' on Gay Marriage." New York
Times 30 June 2011: 16. Newspaper Source Plus. EBSCO. Web. 24 July 2011.
"Washington state approves same-sex rights." UPI Top News (2011): Newspaper Source Plus.
EBSCO. Web. 24 July 2011.
Vanasco, Jennifer. “Vanasco: Gay couples line up to marry in New York.” 365gay.com. 24 July
2011. Web. 25 July 2011.