Initial Thoughts
Three months ago, a beautiful ten-year old girl named Cassandra was seriously asked about her parents during children’s party at school. When the little girl was alone standing nearby, some groups of parents came to her and asked who her parents were. These groups of parents would actually recognize her presence and look at her due to her pleasant face. However, when Cassandra mentioned the question about the name of her parents, it appeared that she mentioned two male names such as Wilson and Patrick. Then, a moment of silence came. Everyone was not able to talk until two male parents came approaching while calling Cassandra’s name. When Cassandra told about her parents, she herself was not sure if she said it correctly. Something bothered her when she uttered two male names such as Patrick and Wilson. She was even wondering it when she saw her classmates with their male and female parents. At her young age, she might have asked why she had two fathers and no mother figure around her. She might have started questioning why she did have two fathers in her room, in the house, at the kitchen table, at the dining room, and at the children’s party at school. As such, Cassandra began collecting answers of those tidbits of reality. Did Cassandra understand her care, her life, and her situation? Or did she lose her mental consciousness defining and re-defining the meaning of a family? What does the term “marriage” mean? What does it constitute to be called a “family?” With this, a deeper understanding of the issue must be framed in order to justify the puzzling justifications of people among others. That is why in this paper the social context of same sex marriage as a controversial issue nowadays of human sexuality will be examined according to the crucial discussions on equality, laws, and religious perspective.
The Religious Force
The controversial issue on same sex marriages has been debated for years in courts. The Proposition 8 in California pushed some debates and required two groups to enter in a forum – the religious groups and the members of homosexual community (“Mormon Church Steps into the Proposition 8 Battle” 2). Both groups participating in the debate would strongly argue on their convictions in which the members of the religious groups from Christian religion namely the Catholics, the Mormon, the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, and others are the influential force trying to ban the same sex marriage and making it illegal. They question the existence of homosexuality, and they attempt to describe the same sex marriages as sinful and as against the laws of God.
The Christian Tradition and Marriage Status
In centuries past, marriage was covered by religious dominions and rules especially in the dogmas of the Christian faith. It was administered and conducted by the church courts. In fact, the church courts ruled over religious doctrines including marriage vows and sanctity of marriages. If marital problems and marriage dilemmas would occur, these church courts could help these problems and confirm marriages. It would mean that religion constituted marriage statuses as the fundamental union between a man and a woman with promises and vows to have a lifelong commitment (Baker, n. pag.). This long commitment ended only when one died as both entered into a marriage life (Henley, p. 243). In here, it would be clear that marriage would require two sexes, the male and female who would have exchanged vows in order to achieve a lifelong commitment.
In the Christian tradition, however, marriage would create a legal role for women and men. The church tradition did specify each role of man and woman in the sanctity of marriage. For instance, the husband became the provider of the family, the protector from harm, and the giver of physiological needs such as food, clothing, and medicine to his wife and children. Another thing in the church tradition is that the woman essentially became a property of the husband when both were married. The wealth and other personal matters of the wife became the property of the husband. In fact, the wife could no longer have a legal personal identity in which the husband would replace the wife’s surname to his. This particular tradition in marriage status could be changed when the partner died (Henley, p. 238). As such, marriage in the history of time considered only man and woman or husband and wife partnership.
Conversely, this tradition in marriage has been changed in the New World such as America. Due to the constitution that separated the church and the state, the church had no control over civil statuses and it no longer had any legitimate power to control the public institution of marriage. In America, to enter the marriage life, the United States would only require some steps or procedures to follow. Men and women would go to a “county clerk's office to file certain reports and documents, present proper identification, and pay a fee” (p. 234). Yet, some American citizens still opted to include religious pastors, ministers, or priests depending on the church denominations where these couples belong to bless the marriage matrimony. In other words, many still preserved and held the traditional marriages to form a traditional family.
Views on Same Sex Marriage as Sin
What did religious people base their arguments on same sex marriage as a sin? Same sex marriages were denied and disregarded by citing verses and chapters of the Bible. The Bible, which Christian faith is based upon and where religious communities devote to follow has been the direct Holy words of God. Since the Bible would condemn the acts of homosexuality, these religious people did, however, forsake and abandon homosexuality including same sex marriages. In Leviticus chapter 18 and verse 22 as cited from the New International Version Classic Reference Bible, it says that “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (1988, 133). This reading from the Bible is supported by the religious people in which for them God pronounces that homosexuality is a sin. Judging homosexuals based on this chapter and verse to forbid homosexuals to marry of the same kind seems entirely unconstitutional. If Americans and the rest of the people in the world disregarded and abandoned this marital status of the homosexuals, all of them would clearly violate the American ideals and doctrines about the separation of state and church and could also negate the demanding human rights and laws of every person of the world. To quote another piece of scripture to argue against homosexuality and same sex marriage, the 1 Corinthians 6: 9 and10 would state that:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, idolater, nor adulterer not male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1988, 1300).
This strong statement of rejection of the wicked would entirely be lost in all beliefs. It is interesting to believe that the following verse in 1 Corinthians 6 can be read like this “and that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1988, 1300). In here, it would be clear that the “wicked” people could be forgiven if they would repent but that there was no mention to interpret them with their claims to have equal marriage. As such, a concept of marriage, family, and procreation should be reviewed and evaluated due to some serious issues and arguments to solve.
The Status of Marriage, the Traditional Family, and the Concept of Procreation
In the attempt to describe the institute of marriage, religious people would value the merits of marriage the most. For them, the same sex marriages would cease the importance of marriage vows and contracts between men and women, and these couples would only create acts of confusion and the social frames of family orientation. The church that strongly implemented the sacred bonds between men and women would only consider a traditional family orientation with a father, a mother, and children. Within this social context of family, both parents share the same values and beliefs and both take care of their children. They would provide the needs and the social and spiritual well-beings of the children considering its responsibilities and nurturance. In here, the existence of kids would seem to be natural that procreation came in the context of family. However, modern parents composed of homosexual parents could not procreate or reproduce due to unnatural ways of repopulation. Homosexual parents could only adopt children if they wanted to have because of such condition. Like Cassandra in this paper, she had homosexual parents, and she had no choice. The moment when she was asked to tell her parents was noticeable. She doubted the idea of telling that her fathers are Patrick and Wilson without a mother. Cassandra observed during the children’s party that a family would be composed of male and female parents. She noticed it when she saw her classmates’ parents. Perhaps, Cassandra would ask a lot of questions in her mind, and she had nothing to do it because she might have a lot of reservations to ask why she had two fathers and no mother. In Cassandra’s mind, a family must have a father, a mother, and children and this family must live happily ever after. This is what Cassandra defined a family.
The Traditional Family
Further, when Cassandra was asked to give names of her parents, she was puzzled. Cassandra’s definition of family involved with a woman whom she might call mommy, a man whom she called daddy, and children whom she called brothers and sisters. Knight (1994) claimed that “the best chance for having a successful, strong marriage is to grow up in a family with a strong marriage as a family that the church would consider the heterosexual parents” (p. 119). If the church, the government, and the rest of the people would allow homosexuals to marry, how procreation did happen since same sex couples could not biologically bear children. If they would permit these groups to marry to another, what did children think about this condition at their younger age? Did they have the options to choose their parents traditionally choosing a mother and a father figure? How did other people perceive the purpose of marriage, the sanctity, and the rest of possibilities? These questions would actually raise debates whether or not these homosexual parents were concerned about the emotions of the kids like Cassandra.
The Purpose of Marriage
Looking closely at the bigger picture, the purpose of marriage for religious groups is to procreate and bear children. This purpose would disqualify the homosexual couples and their duties of marriage. Kahn, a Jewish Rabbi, (1989) pointed out a religious viewpoint that verified this piece of argument. He asserted that same sex marriage was excluded due to the inability of procreation and repopulation (p. 75). On the contrary, precluding same-sex couples from the institute of marriage is a violation to human rights. According to McKinney (2004), he stressed that “marriage is such a basic civil right that no state is justified in denying this right to people based on discriminatory classifications” (p. 288). Whether or not it is a human right or an individual right afforded to people, what is more for these couples to offer for children, for the general population? Even if homosexuality was granted and allowed by some countries, what values and morals could they provide to their adopted children? What more?
Final Thoughts
In this paper, after reviewing the various arguments to justify the inclusion of same sex marriages in the wedding ceremonies, what else could there be for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to marry. What valid arguments could be accommodated this marriage? Even if some European nations like Netherlands and Denmark legalized same sex marriages and even if America followed their league of approving this case, still a crucial question could be asked. What did the innocent minds like Cassandra say about this? In fact, Dupuis (2002) stressed out that “the anti-discrimination law has prohibited public defamation of any group of people based on their sexual orientation in Denmark” (p. 127). The fact is that same sex marriages inevitably grew much recognition and permission, and most Americans would mostly believe that legal same sex marriage will eventually be established throughout the United States (Hull 2006, 204). If this marriage will be granted, what part of human sexuality must be refrained from doing? It is not because people are free and are granted to live their lives freely, they can justify their actions. Yes, homosexuals are accepted, and they have gained equal rights. However, can they not think of the possibility that they may alter the kids’ perceptions and views about family life? Now, if more homosexuals would march along the church halls for weddings in dark Americana suits or in bridal gowns, how could we define the real marriages then religious perspectives? What moral arguments could support for this idea? What did children or particularly Cassandra view about it? Still, this long battle could never be ended in the social context of human sexuality.
Works Cited
Babst, Gordon A. “Liberal Constitutionalism, Marriage, and Sexual Orientation: A Contemporary Case for Disestablishment.” New York: Peter Lang, 2002.
Baker, Brittney. “Same Sex Marriage and Religion: An Inappropriate Relationship.” e-Research Journal 1(3), 2010. Web. 2 Nov. 2013. Print.
Dupuis, Martin. “Same-Sex Marriage: Legal Mobilization, and the Politics of Law.” New York: Peter Lang, 2002.
Henley, Kenneth. “The Cheshire Cat: Same-Sex Marriage, Religion, and Coercion by Exclusion.” In Reidy and Riker, eds., Coercion and the State. New York: Springer, 2008.
Hull, Kathleen E. “Same-Sex Marriage: The Cultural Politics of Love and Law.” New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Kahn, Yoel H. “The Kedushah of Homosexual Relations.” In Sullivan, ed., Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con A Reader. New York: Vintage Books, 1989.
Knight, Robert H. “How Domestic Partnerships and "Gay Marriage" Threaten the Family.” In Baird and Rosenbaum, eds., Same-Sex Marriage: the Moral and Legal Debate. New York: Prometheus Books, 1994.
McKinney, Jack. “A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage.” In Baird and Rosenbaum, eds., Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate. New York: Prometheus Books, 2004.
“Mormon Church Steps into the Proposition 8 Battle.” 9 Oct. 2008. Web. 2 Oct. 2013. <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10/now-the-mormon.html>.
“The New International Version Classic Reference Bible.” 1988. Web. 2 Nov. 2013. The Zondervan Corporation: Grand Rapids, Michigan.
