History of Gay Marriage

Contents:

• GAY MARRIAGE: THEOLOGIL AND MORAL ARGUMENTS
• HOW TO HAVE A DISCSN ON GAY MARRIAGE
• CALIFORNIA STILL HAS AN ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE LAW ON THE BOOKS. VOTERS COULD REMOVE IT NEXT YEAR
• HISTORY OF GAY MARRIAGE
• SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?
• GAY MARRIAG LEGALY DISCSN
• GAY MARRIAGE AND THE BIBLE

GAY MARRIAGE: THEOLOGIL AND MORAL ARGUMENTS

The vast majory of scientific studi that have directly pared lbian and gay parents wh heterosexual parents have nsistently shown that the same-sex upl are as f and pable parents as heterosexual upl, and that their children are jt as psychologilly healthy and well adjted. Supporters of same-sex marriage ntend that gay and lbian upl should be treated no differently than their heterosexual unterparts and that they should be able to marry like anyone else. They pot out, for stance, that homosexual upl who have been together for years often fd themselv whout the basic rights and privileg that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual upl who legally marry — om the sharg of health and pensn benefs to hospal visatn rights.

Allowg gay and lbian upl to wed, they argue, will radilly refe marriage and further weaken at a time when the stutn is already ep trouble due to high divorce rat and the signifint number of out-of-wedlock births. The Catholic Church and evangelil Christian groups have played a leadg role public opposn to gay marriage, while male Prottant church and other relig groups wrtle wh whether to orda gay clergy and perform same-sex marriage ceremoni.

HOW TO HAVE A DISCSN ON GAY MARRIAGE

Ined, the ordatn and marriage of gay persons has been a growg wedge between the socially liberal and nservative wgs of the Epispal and Prbyterian church, leadg some nservative ngregatns and even whole dc to break away om their natnal church.

CALIFORNIA STILL HAS AN ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE LAW ON THE BOOKS. VOTERS COULD REMOVE IT NEXT YEAR

However, a 2006 Pew survey found that sizable majori of whe male Prottants (66%), Catholics (63%) and those whout a relig affiliatn (78%) favor allowg homosexual upl to enter to civil unns that grant most of the legal rights of marriage whout the tle. Gay Amerins have been llg for the right to marry, or at least to create more formalized relatnships, sce the 1960s, but same-sex marriage has only emerged as a natnal issue the last 15 years.

The spark that started the bate me om Hawaii 1993 when the state’s Supreme Court led that an existg law banng same-sex marriage would be unnstutnal unls the state ernment uld show that had a pellg reason for discrimatg agast gay and lbian upl. Even though this cisn did not immediately lead to the legalizatn of gay marriage the state (the se was sent back to a lower urt for further nsiratn), did spark a natnwi backlash.

HISTORY OF GAY MARRIAGE

Although the bate over gay marriage for a while seemed to fa om the public eye, the issue was sudnly and dramatilly tapulted back to the headl November 2003 when the hight state urt Massachetts led that the state’s nstutn guaranteed gay and lbian upl the right to marry.

To beg wh, all the marriage licens issued to gay upl outsi of Massachetts were later nullified sce none of the mayors and other officials volved had the thory to grant marriage licens to same-sex upl. What has grown is a much greater acceptance of gays and lbians our culture, as well as the social and enomic eedom for gays and lbians to emerge om the closet that has nfed them for so many generatns.

SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?

The recent addn of same sex mment ceremoni the Sunday New York Tim weddg and engagement announcements and the populary of shows as "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye…" dite a shift our culture's attu toward gays and lbians. My tent was two-fold: first to ve stunts to dialogue wh people different om themselv; send, to work to elimate, whatever small way I uld, homophobic attus on our mp and our muny. My purpose today is not to support or fend gay and lbian marriag—ed, many gays and lbians do not want to marry—but simply suggt a theologil approach that might open up the possibily for greater Christian acceptance of, and eccliastil approval for, same sex unns.

Catholic sistence: one n uphold the digny of homosexual people while not upholdg their right-to-marry; no unjt discrimatn towards homosexuals is acceptable; they mt be treated wh rpect, and their rights fend. Scholars and the general public beme creasgly terted the issue durg the late 20th century, a perd when attus toward homosexualy and laws regulatg homosexual behavur were liberalized, particularly wtern Europe and the Uned issue of same-sex marriage equently sparked emotnal and polil clash between supporters and opponents. Relig and secular expectatns of marriage and sexualy Over time the historil and tradnal cultur origally rerd by the lik of Bachofen and Man slowly succumbed to the homogenizatn imposed by lonialism.

In other s, the cultural homogeney supported by the domant relign did not rult the applitn of doctre to the civic realm but may nohels have fostered a smoother seri of discsns among the cizenry: Belgium and Spa had legalized same-sex marriage, for stance, spe official opposn om their predomant relig stutn, the Roman Catholic Church. Most of the world religns have at some pots their histori opposed same-sex marriage for one or more of the followg stated reasons: homosexual acts vlate natural law or dive tentns and are therefore immoral; passag sacred texts nmn homosexual acts; and relig tradn regniz only the marriage of one man and one woman as valid.

GAY MARRIAG LEGALY DISCSN

Even those of who have ethil objectns to homosexual practice should be able to regnize the posive dimensns of a mment between two persons for mutual support, provisn, and pannship.

What is beg sought civil partnerships, and even more sistently same-sex marriage, is the public affirmatn and celebratn of homosexual sex, as terchangeable wh maral sex between a man and woman. To make civil partnerships ntgent upon homosexual sex or to offer same-sex marriag would be unjtly discrimatory agast those who serve the same social goods apart om sexual relatns. The ncern unrlyg this qutn is that we don’t, through a nstant bracketg of the qutn of the moraly of homosexual practice, end up abandong the historic Christian nvictn that homosexual practice is ntrary to dive will and human nature.

While I want to make clear that my arguments agast same-sex marriage do not typilly pend upon opposn to homosexual practice, I am prepared to give an explanatn for why I am also opposed to that when people ask me. The strength of the scriptural se agast homosexual practice do not, however, rt upon prohibns of homosexual practice so much as upon s posive teachg about the appropriate ntext, nature, and ends of human sexual behavur. The mon nservative Christian way of reasong on the subject of same-sex marriage begs wh the dive mands agast homosexual practice and works om those to the illegimacy of same-sex marriage.

GAY MARRIAGE AND THE BIBLE

In this rpect, Christians opposed to homosexual practice and same-sex marriage reason much the same directn as those who support homosexual practice and same-sex marriage: both reason om sexualy/sexual practice to marriage.

When the Scriptur speak of homosexual relatns as an ‘abomatn’, is agast this background that is speakg: is seen as a vlatn, perversn, and dishonourg of some of the most important dimensns of human existence and a distortg of the very image of God. This is why, Scripture, homosexual practice falls the same tegory that we would put somethg like the creatn of a human-animal hybrid – is regard as a moral monstrosy, a s agast human nature self. Incintally, is tertg to observe that, a culture where sex is very firmly oriented towards ends that exceed mere sexual pleasure, homosexualy and masturbatn don’t even appear on the cultural radar.