Gay Marriage

"Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve?"

"Ladies and gentleman, we are gathered here today to witness Adam and Steve in the bonds of holy matrimony." In modern society this topic is a never ending battle. Between government officials and religious beliefs and teachings there is never a shortage of reasons why some think that homosexual marriage is immoral and unnatural. However to some it as a natural occurrence between two attracted individuals. Either opinion relies on the individual's own definition of the word normal.

Many of America's government officials such as George W. Bush are strongly against gay marriage. They believe that the sole purpose for the marriage of a man and a woman is a means of procreation and establishing a family union which is the basis of building a stable society. By recognizing the right of the same sex marriage would bring to big of a shift in the fundamental definition of the word "marriage."

So, as to not discriminate against homosexual peoples the Domestic Partnership Law came into place. This law was developed to give limited rights to same sex couples without denying them their constitutional rights. The domestic partnership is defined as a legal or personal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are not joined by a traditional marriage. The benefits that come along with this law include adoption, dental a medical insurance, dependent life insurance, and rights to their partner's belongings and properties after death. The only state to adopt this law was the state of California.

Other states such as Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont adopted the policy of Civil Unions. A civil union is the equivalent of a marriage but with out the title. However only the state of Massachusetts offers full marriage rights to same sex couples, but anywhere outside of the state of Massachusetts the marriage is considered nonbinding due to state policies not in their favor.

In 1996 a bill was passed know as the Defense of Marriage Act. It was passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton on September the 21st. This law has two effects. The first is that "No state need recognize a marriage between two persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded and recognized in another state." (DOMA Sept. 21 96') The second effect is that "The Federal Government may not recognize same sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized in another state. This bill was developed in fear from other states that they would have to recognize same sex marriages that were preformed in the state of Massachusetts. After this bill was passed twelve states banned any recognition of any forms of marriage including civil unions and domestic partnerships. Twenty six states have adopted amendments to their state constitutions banning same sex marriages, and another twenty adopted similar forms of DOMA's.

This bill passed seemed to be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause which states "the duties that states have to respect and enforce the judicial rulings of other states. This clause was designed to provide reason between state lines on non federal laws and regulations. So if this applies to court orders, recognition of legal status,

taxation and spousal and child support why does the issue of same sex marriages apply? The Supreme Court states that they have long recognized that there are public policy exceptions to the clause. They pointed out that they have made several laws such as firearm control, employment discrimination and disability that fall outside of the basis of the Clause. And in this case the issue on Gay Marriage falls into their exceptions.

But the United States government is not the only ones that have a negative view point on this fragile issue. It is also religious aspect of the issue. Many religions including the Roman Catholics and Christians have negative views on the issue due to the writing and teachings of their faith. Another reason why the government has problems dealing with the issue is because they base their beliefs off of their religion and do not look at it from a neutral perspective. If religion did not play such a crucial role in the topic of gay marriage I think that the rulings would have been a lot easier to decide.

In the bible it clearly states that "Man should marry Woman and Woman should marry Man." No where in the bible does it ever say anything about two men or two women together. God created man and women for the sole purpose of procreation. The Catholic Church is even against masturbation and contraception saying that "It is better to put your seed in a whore then on the floor. They see it as a waste of life. According to the bible sex was not created as a source of pleasure but only and strictly for procreation. But then does that mean that a woman or a man that is biologically not able to make children should not ever have sex? This is the same basic concept for same sex intercourse. They feel that if nothing is coming out of it then what is the sense of doing it at all. They deem it as unnatural and immoral, but what would be defined differently by the individual,

because we all have our different views on what we see as moral and natural.

Well what is then considered to be Natural? The word natural is defined as something that is accepted or ordinary to others. Where "Unnatural refers to that which deviates from the norm, that is, from what most people do." (A Defense of Homosexuality, John Corvino, 97') In today's society we are now accustomed to seeing gay or lesbian couples out together or even kissing. Even many of the television shows of today are based around or have gay characters in them. So based around us seeing things of this nature all the time why do we consider it to be not natural? They say that homosexual people are born that way and that they can't help being that way. So if some people are born heterosexual and it is natural for them to be attracted to the opposite sex then is it not natural for a homosexual person to be attracted to the person of the same sex. Natural is all dependent on the individuals perspective on things. But the Church doesn't see it that way.

The real question that the Church should be asking is "Can the church change?" New information, the reinterpretation of dogmas, and even cash flow could persuade the church into changing for example say you have a little boy. He is born into a very religious Catholic family. Growing up he goes to church every Sunday, attends Sunday school and is enrolled in a Catholic school