We see a lot of arguments for and against gay marriage in the news, whether they are from religious groups or other organizations but these arguments will mean nothing unless everyone is on the same page. In order to have a valid argument with the opposite side, it is always important to make sure that the terms are defined in order to ensure a clear argument. The one problem that has been affecting the gay marriage debate in the United States is the inaccuracy of using the terms “gay marriage” and “civil union” interchangeably even though they mean different things. The point of this paper will be to bring out the differences of these two terms and argue why civil unions should be legal in the United States.
According to the ‘Lectric Law Library, marriage is a “contract made in due form of law” and it goes on to describe the requirements of the contract (www.lectlaw.com). The Merriam-Webster definition has three parts to it and it specifically makes the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. The religious definition of marriage, whether it is in the bible, the Koran or the Torah dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman, and homosexuality is a sin. So, which of these definitions shall be used in order to debate over the issue that I am coming to you with today? None of these address the issue of legality of a marriage except for the first definition so it is important to keep the focus on that definition and move on to define my second term which is civil union. A civil union is extremely different than a marriage in that it affects the legal aspect of a couple’s relationship, which should be the real argument behind homosexual unions. On July 1, 2000, Vermont became the first state to legalize civil unions between homosexual couples. This means that the law grants “the same state benefits, civil rights, and protections to same-sex couples as to married couples” (What is a Civil Union?).
When looking at the arguments against gay marriages in the United States, the loudest opposition comes from religious leaders. Although we are a diverse country made up of many religions, the biggest opposition is from Christian leaders who use Bible passages as foundations of their cases. The passage that is most commonly cited in the bible is Leviticus 20:13 which says “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” This supports the traditional definition of marriage which states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but this definition has more of a religious base than a legal one. The opinions of religious leaders weigh heavily on the decisions that the general population makes because the religious community, whether it is going to church or in a social setting, has a large impact on the daily lives of the citizens who follow a particular religion.
Religious leaders have been working toward unifying citizens in the legal and political battle against gay marriage and homosexuality ever since the issue became widespread enough to cause a public outcry. In October of 2004, there was a “Mayday for Marriage” rally in our capital’s National Mall to support the traditional definition of marriage. The purpose of this rally was to react to the court rulings across the nation in the recent months. “Pro-family leaders say that a marriage amendment to the US Constitution is the only way to preserve the traditional definition of a marriage” (Foust). Ken Hutcherson, the pastor behind the Mayday for Marriage rally, wanted to send a message to the politicians. He wanted the politicians to know that they shouldn’t “Mess with God’s people” and that “as a politician, you better watch what you vote for and how you vote, because if you don’t vote right on this issue, we’re going to change your view from your office on Nov. 2” (Foust).
As a Muslim citizen of the United States, I also believe that homosexuality is a sin. Just as there are references in the Bible to homosexuality, the Islam religion also has text, specifically (Hadiths) text attributed as saying of Muhammad, which refers to homosexuality. As a mirror to Leveticus 20:13, one Hadith refers to homosexuality by stating that “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes” (Islam and Homosexuality). Regardless of my personal religious beliefs, I have no right to impose my opinions on anybody else. One of the reasons I came to the United States is because of the religious freedom and the separation of church and state. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of our country wrote
“…I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State…”
We are a nation built on the principles of equality and civil liberties. Every man of every faith can uphold these principles. Although each person has the right to exercise their own individual set of beliefs, no person has the right to impose their opinions on others. It becomes a serious problem when religious leaders in this country feel that they have the right to coerce politicians to vote one way by threatening them with words. If our politicians are being influenced by the words of these leaders and seeing it as the voice of their constituency, then the issue becomes one that influences every person of every faith in the United States. Just as our government has no constitutional right to tell its citizens which religion they should practice, or mandate them to go to church every Sunday, they also have no right to tell a man or woman to engage only in heterosexual relationships. When deciding whether or not we should allow the citizens of our country to exercise their free will, we should not let religion get in the way of making the right decision. The issue of gay marriage is not a religious one. Whether the homosexuals who have chosen that as their lifestyle decide to go against their own faith is their own choice. As long as we continue to be influenced by the religious opposition to this argument, we will never reach the most important issue of all. Does our federal government have the right to alienate its own citizens for their lifestyle?
The answer to that question is “No!”, as it has been since our founding fathers wrote our Constitution which the Supreme Court has to uphold. I am not here defending homosexuality. I am here defending the civil liberties of my fellow citizens to lead a life with the man or woman that they love. Whether they are heterosexuals or homosexuals should not affect their union. Our society cannot look down upon individuals because of their personal beliefs and impose one set of beliefs to our citizens. We may be one nation under God but as long as we continue to alienate our own people, we will no longer be indivisible.
Civil Unions vs Civil Marriage.
Comparing marriage and civil unions. 26 February 2004.
Foust, Michael. “Mayday for Marriage rally goal: 1 Million on DC’s National Mall” 9
