The Marriage Ordeal: Rights And Ramifications
Essay Preview: The Marriage Ordeal: Rights And Ramifications
Report this essay
Israel Jimenez
Professor Byron
Political Science 102
21 February 2005
The Marriage Ordeal: Rights and Ramifications
In a country with its fundamentals based on liberty and equality, America has always struggled with those very concepts. Throughout history, Americans have been challenged to make decisions that have oppressed and freed certain groups of people. The political fight for same-sex marriages is a perfect example of this notion. This relation between spouses has created a major controversy that is creating history in our nation. A series of protests, acts and political scandal has finally opened America to discuss a topic that had been in “the closet” for a long time. This discussion asks questions that have caused a visceral reaction in society. Questions such as whether gays and lesbians should marry, and if so, should they be granted the same matrimony rights as heterosexual couples? Should marriage be protected to fit traditional American values? How would these unions affect or contribute to our definition of such a celebrated institution? .
Tradition is a strong component in the institution of marriage. The ideal American dream usually involves the perfect fairy-tale wedding with the gorgeous white wedding dress for the bride, the matching bridesmaids, the well-arranged bouquet and the numerous rituals that compose this well thought-out event. Usually it requires a great amount of planning, devotion and dollars to make the important day memorable. Family and friends come together to rejoice in the vows that will bond the two lovers into a lifetime journey of love, commitment and fidelity. Each person in the couple is expected to have a role in this institution. According to Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, “in the idealized form of the older model of traditional marriage, the mans primary job for self-definition is to provide for the economic well-being, protection, and stability of his family The womans job and self-definition”, on the other hand, continue Wallerstein and Blakeslee, “is to care for her husband and children and to create a comfortable home that nourishes everyone, particularly her husband, who comes home each evening drained by the demands of his job (211).” With a constantly changing society, the concept of marriage has also varied. The “quickie” Vegas drive-through wedding or the underwater vow exchange is not as unusual or shocking as it once was. Even the roles of the persons involved have changed to fit the shape of societys needs. For example the modern “companionate marriage” which is “founded on the couples shared beliefs that men and women are equal partners in all spheres of life and that their roles, including those of marriage, are completely interchangeable (Wallerstein, Blakeslee 155).” With the concept being able to adapt our definition of “roles and traditions to fit the needs of the ever-changing society in mind, is the concept of same-sex marriage really so far fetch?
History tells us that same-sex unions are not as contemporary as some might assume. Ceremonies between same-sex couples were not uncommon, specially in pre modern Europe where these vows were practiced involving the union of soul mates. “The same sex union ceremony makes no mention -in any language- of tribal, clan or family loyalty or union: it is unmistakably a voluntary, emotional union of two persons -always two: never more- (Boswell 188).” What has changed since then? Could this history be inaccurate? Since all we have is text to prove any of these historical events, creating a standard that fits what we believe is right or wrong is challenging. Boswell adds, “It is nearly impossible to formulate in a precise and generally acceptable way what is meant by marriage, either by modern speakers or in ancient texts (9).” There are many recorded characters and stories about same-sex unions and couples in world history. These include very controversial relationships found in the Bible itself. Many believe the relationship between Jonathan and David went far more than friendship. The second book of Samuel 9:1 tells their story: “After Jonathan was killed, David lamented publicly, I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” Other unions in the Bible seem to have the same bonding, homosexual connotations, including those of Ruth and Naomi and even more controversial that of Jesus and his most beloved disciple, John. Aside from the Bible, there is also the history of Serge and Bacchus, two Christian roman soldiers of high standing in the late third/early fourth century who were united in their love for each other and later became martyrs due to their union. This was before the year 1000 and before the intrusion of the pseu-Isidorian decretals in canonical collections in the eleventh century. A whole lot has changed since then and will continue to as long as we remain human.
Today our conception of marriage differs from person to person, yet the struggle to fight for what we believe in remains the same. Same-sex marriage is at the center of one of the hottest debates of this years legislative session. In less than thirty years, the gay and lesbian movement has become one of the largest civil rights movements in contemporary America. The movement has formed legal rights organizations, including the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Human Rights Campaign. These efforts have drawn national attention and developed compromises such as the “Dont Ask, Dont Tell” policy for gays in the military and extended fundamental civil rights such as in the Supreme Courts ruling of the Romer v. Evans case to protect gay rights. But the fight for equality is not over, the Gay and Lesbian Times informs us that currently the “Family Code 300” exists, “which was established by the Legislature and defines marriage under California law as between a man and a woman (14).” With a changing government and presidents with different views of Civil Rights throughout time, it is difficult to speculate what decisions will be made. Proof of this is, Proposition 22, “which added a provision to the Family Code providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Proposition 22, also known as the California Defense of Marriage Act, was ratified by a majority of California voters on March 7, 2000 (GLT 14).” On the other hand, efforts to legalize same-sex marriage