Free Essay

Civil Union

In:

Submitted By jellispiejay
Words 3504
Pages 15
Journal Article - Case Comment

Civil unions - exclusion of same-sex couples.
E.H.R.L.R. 2014, 2, 179-184 [European Human Rights Law Review] Publication Date: 2014 Subject: Family law. Other related subjects: Human rights Keywords: Civil partnerships; Greece; Right to respect for private and family life; Same sex partners; Sexual orientation discrimination Abstract: Comments on the European Court of Human Rights decision in Vallianatos v Greece (29381/09) on whether a Greek law affording legal recognition to civil unions between unmarried heterosexual couples but not same sex couples breached the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 arts 8 and 14. Notes that the court did not assess whether Greece had a positive obligation to introduce civil unions for same sex couples. Considers the potential implications of the ruling for the civil partnership institution in England and Wales. Legislation Cited: European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.14 Cases Cited: Vallianatos v Greece (29381/09) Unreported November 7, 2013 (ECHR (Grand Chamber))
© 2014 Sweet & Maxwell

Page1

European Human Rights Law Review
2014

Case Comment Civil unions - exclusion of same-sex couples
Subject: Family law. Other related subjects: Human rights Keywords: Civil partnerships; Greece; Right to respect for private and family life; Same sex partners; Sexual orientation discrimination Legislation: European Convention on Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.14 Case: Vallianatos v Greece (29381/09) Unreported November 7, 2013 (ECHR (Grand Chamber))

*E.H.R.L.R. 179 Vallianatos v Greece (Application Nos 29381/09 and 32684/09)
European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber): Judgment of November 7, 2013

Facts
The first and second, third and fourth, and fifth and sixth applicants lived together as couples in Athens. The seventh and eighth applicants were in a relationship but for professional and social reasons they did not live together, although the eighth applicant did pay the seventh applicant’s social-security contributions. The ninth applicant was "Synthessi —Information Awareness-raising and Research", a not-for-profit organisation whose aims included providing psychological and moral support to gay men and lesbians. In November 2008, Greek Law No.3719/2008 entitled "Reforms concerning the family, children and society" entered into force and introduced civil unions as an alternative form of officially recognised partnership to marriage. Section 1 of the law stated that only two different-sex adults could enter into a civil union. The law dealt with various aspects of entering into a civil union including financial relations (s.6), maintenance obligations after dissolution of a civil union (s.7), presumption of paternity (s.8), parental responsibility (s.10) and inheritance rights (s.11). The explanatory report on Law No.3719/2008 stated that it was intended to address cohabitation outside of marriage and to allow people to register their relationship within a more flexible legal framework than *E.H.R.L.R. 180 marriage. The report stated that 5 per cent of children born in Greece were born to couples living in de facto partnerships and that women who were left without support after long periods of cohabitation and single-parent families generally were major issues in Greece that required a legislative response. The report noted that civil unions would only be available to different-sex adults but did not elaborate on the reasons for this. Under Greek law, the state is liable in tort for unlawful acts or omissions, including acts which are not in principle enforceable through the courts. The only condition for the admissibility of a claim for damages against the state is that the act or omission in question is unlawful. Nevertheless, the applicants did not challenge the compatibility of Law No.3719/2008 with arts 8 and 14 before the Greek national courts. The applicants complained that by excluding same-sex couples from entering into civil unions, the respondent State had breached their rights under art.14 taken in conjunction with art.8. The applicants also alleged that the respondent State had breached art.13 because there was no effective remedy available to them in the domestic courts. On September 11, 2012 a Chamber of the Court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.

Held
The complaints under art.14 taken in conjunction with art.8 in respect of the first eight applicants were

Page2

admissible (by a majority) and the remainder of the applications were inadmissible. The Court rejected the respondent State’s argument that the first eight applicants were not victims within the meaning of art.34. They were individuals of full age who were in same-sex relationships and in some cases cohabited. As a result of the scope of Law No.3719/2008 they could not enter into a civil union and organise their relationship accordingly; therefore, they were directly concerned by the situation and had a legitimate personal interest in seeing it brought to an end. However, the Court accepted that the ninth applicant, a not-for-profit organisation whose chief aim was to provide psychological and moral support to gay men and lesbians, was not a victim. The complaint concerned the fact that Law No.3719/2008 denied same-sex couples the opportunity to enter into a civil union and, as it was a legal entity, the ninth applicant could not be considered a direct or indirect victim. The Court rejected the respondent State’s argument that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because they could have challenged the compatibility of the law by way of an interlocutory application in a claim for compensation against the state. The applicants were complaining of a continuing breach of their rights and a claim for compensation, which could not oblige the respondent State to amend the offending law, would not offer sufficient redress. Furthermore, the domestic courts applied the law on state liability restrictively and none of the cases cited concerned an issue comparable to the current case. The respondent State had failed to show that a claim for compensation would be an effective and sufficient domestic remedy. The Court reiterated that art.13 does not guarantee a remedy allowing a state’s laws to be challenged before a national authority on the grounds that they are incompatible with the Convention. The applicants’ complaint under art.13 was incompatible with this principle and therefore it was manifestly ill-founded. There had been a violation of art.14 taken in conjunction with art.8 (by sixteen votes to one). The Court noted that the applicants formed stable same-sex couples and it was not disputed that their relationships fell within the concept of "private life" in art.8. The Court reiterated its decision in Schalk and Kopf that, in view of the rapid evolution in a number of member states regarding the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, it would be artificial to *E.H.R.L.R. 181 maintain that a same-sex couple could not enjoy "family life" for the purposes of art.8. Accordingly the applicants’ relationships fell within the concepts of "private life" and "family life". Furthermore, there was no basis for distinguishing in this regard between those applicants who lived together and those who did not, as this did not affect the stability that brings their relationships within the scope of "family life". The Court clarified that it was not considering in the abstract whether there was a general positive obligation on the respondent State to provide legal recognition of same-sex relationships. It was only considering whether the law introduced by the respondent State that established a new form of civil union available only to different-sex couples was compatible with arts 8 and 14. The Court found that the applicants were in a comparable situation to different-sex couples wishing to enter into a civil union under Law No.3719/2008 in respect of their need for legal recognition and protection of their relationship: same-sex couples are just as capable as different-sex couples of entering into stable and committed relationships and they have the same needs in terms of mutual support and assistance. Furthermore, there was a clear difference in treatment based on sexual orientation as Law No.3719/2008 limited civil unions to different-sex couples. The respondent State argued that the difference in treatment was justified because: i) same-sex couples could manage their property status, financial relations and inheritance using ordinary contract law; and ii) Law No.3719/2008 was intended to protect children born outside of marriage, protect single parent families, allow parents to raise their children without being obliged to marry and strengthen the institutions of marriage and the family in the traditional sense, and these aims were not relevant to same-sex couples who were not capable of having biological children together. The Court dismissed the first argument because it did not take account of the intrinsic value to same-sex couples of having their relationship legally recognised by the state. Entering into a civil union would be the only opportunity available to the applicants to have their relationship legally recognised; therefore, same-sex couples would have a particular interest in entering into a civil union. As regards the second argument, the Court accepted that protection of the family in the traditional sense and protection of the interests of children are, in principle, weighty and legitimate aims which might justify a difference in treatment. However, the respondent State had failed to show that it was

Page3

necessary to prevent same-sex couples entering into civil unions in order to achieve those aims. Notwithstanding the title and stated aims of Law No.3719/2008, it was first and foremost intended to afford legal protection to a form of relationship other than marriage. It was not limited to regulating the status of children born outside of marriage but also dealt with financial relations, maintenance on dissolution and inheritance. It would have been possible for the law to include some provisions dealing specifically with children born outside of marriage, while at the same time allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. The Court noted that, while there was no consensus among the Council of Europe member states, a trend was emerging regarding the introduction of legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Nine member states allowed for same-sex marriage and seventeen authorised some form of civil partnership for same-sex couples. Lithuania and Greece were the only member states to have a form of registered partnership other than marriage that was limited to opposite-sex couples. The fact that Greece found itself in an isolated position did not necessarily mean that its law was incompatible with the Convention. However, it had failed *E.H.R.L.R. 182 to provide convincing and weighty reasons capable of justifying the exclusion of same-sex couples from entering into civil unions. Therefore, there had been a violation of art.14 taken in conjunction with art.8. The respondent State was to pay each applicant €5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Cases considered
A. B. and C. v Ireland (2011) 53 E.H.R.R. 13 Abdulaziz v United Kingdom (1985) 7 E.H.R.R. 471 Akdivar v Turkey (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 143 Aksu v Turkey (2013) 56 E.H.R.R. 4 Anakomba Yula v Belgium (App. No.45413/07), judgment of March 10, 2009 Ananyev v Russia (2012) 55 E.H.R.R. 18 Brauer v Germany (2010) 51 E.H.R.R. 23 Broniowski v Poland (2005) 40 E.H.R.R. 21 Burden v United Kingdom (2008) 47 E.H.R.R. 38 Burdov v Russia (No.2) (2009) 49 E.H.R.R. 2 Carabulea v Romania (App. No.45661/99), judgment of July 13, 2010 Creang# v Romania (2013) 56 E.H.R.R. 11 Cyprus v Turkey (2002) 35 E.H.R.R. 30 De Wilde v Belgium (1979–80) 1 E.H.R.R. 373 Defalque v Belgium (App. No.37330/02), judgment of April 20, 2006 Demicoli v Malta (1992) 14 E.H.R.R. 47 D.H. v Czech Republic (2008) 47 E.H.R.R. 3 Do#an v Turkey (2005) 41 E.H.R.R. 15 Duda v France (App. No.37387/05), decision of March 17, 2009 Dudgeon v United Kingdom (1982) 4 E.H.R.R. 149. Dumitru Popescu v Romania (No.2) (App. No.71525/01), judgment of April 26, 2007 E.B. v France (2008) 47 E.H.R.R. 21 F. v Switzerland (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 411

Page4

Fabris v France (2013) 57 E.H.R.R. 19 Fédération chrétienne des témoins de Jéhovah de France v France (App. No.53430/99), decision of November 6, 2011 Findlay v United Kingdom (1997) 24 E.H.R.R. 221 Fressoz v France (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 2 Fretté v France (2004) 38 E.H.R.R. 21 Gas v France (App. No.25951/07), judgment of March 15, 2012 Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002) 35 E.H.R.R. 18 Hasan v Bulgaria (2002) 34 E.H.R.R. 55 Hasan v Turkey (2008) 46 E.H.R.R. 44 #çyer v Turkey (App. No.18888/02), decision of January 12, 2006 Ireland v United Kingdom (1979–80) 2 E.H.R.R. 25 James v United Kingdom (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 123 Johnston v Ireland (1987) 9 E.H.R.R. 203 Kanagaratnam v Belgium (2012) 55 E.H.R.R. 26 Karner v Austria (2004) 38 E.H.R.R. 24 Kart v Turkey (App. No.8917/05), judgment of July 8, 2008 Klass v Germany (1979–80) 2 E.H.R.R. 214 *E.H.R.L.R. 183 Kozak v Poland (2010) 51 E.H.R.R. 16 Kud#a v Poland (2002) 35 E.H.R.R. 11 L. v Lithuania (2008) 46 E.H.R.R. 22 L. v Austria (2003) 36 E.H.R.R. 55 Lizarraga v Spain (2007) 45 E.H.R.R. 45 Lukenda v Slovenia (2008) 47 E.H.R.R. 32 M. v Bulgaria (App. No.41416/08), judgment of July 26, 2011 Maestri v Italy (2004) 39 E.H.R.R. 38 Malone v United Kingdom (1985) 7 E.H.R.R. 14 Mandi# v Slovenia (App. Nos 5774/10 and 5985/10), judgment of October 20, 2011 Manole v Moldova (App. No.13936/02), judgment of September 17, 2009 Manoussakis v Greece (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 387 Marckx v Belgium (1979–80) 2 E.H.R.R. 330 McFarlane v Ireland (2011) 52 E.H.R.R. 20 Michaud v France (App. No.12323/11), judgment of December 6, 2012 Modinos v Cyprus (1993) 16 E.H.R.R. 485 Norris v Ireland (1991) 13 E.H.R.R. 186 Odièvre v France (2004) 38 E.H.R.R. 43

Page5

Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland (1993) 15 E.H.R.R. 244 Paksas v Lithuania (App. No.34932/04), judgment of January 6, 2011 Palaoro v Austria (2001) 32 E.H.R.R. 10 P.B. and J.S. v Austria (2012) 55 E.H.R.R. 31 Petrovic v Austria (2001) 33 E.H.R.R. 14 Pulatli v Turkey (App. No.38665/07), judgment of April 26, 2011 Ramadhi v Albania (2009) 48 E.H.R.R. 16 Roche v United Kingdom (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 30 Runkee and White v United Kingdom (App. Nos 42949/98 and 53134/99), judgment of May 10, 2007 Salah v Netherlands (2007) 44 E.H.R.R. 55 Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v Portugal (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 47 Sampanis v Greece (App. No.32526/05), judgment of June 5, 2008 SARL du Parc d’Activités de Blotzheim v France (App. No.72377/01), judgment of July 11, 2006 Schalk v Austria (2011) 53 E.H.R.R. 20 Sejdi# v Bosnia and Herzegovina (App. Nos 27996/06 and 34836/06), judgment of December 22, 2009 S.L. v Austria (App. No.45330/99), decision of November 22, 2001 S.L. v Austria (2003) 37 E.H.R.R. 39 Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (2000) 29 E.H.R.R. 493 Soto Sanchez v Spain (App. No.66990/01), judgment of November 25, 2003 Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 E.H.R.R. 47 T#nase v Moldova (2011) 53 E.H.R.R. 22 Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis v Greece (App. No.26698/05), judgment of March 27, 2008 Tyrer v United Kingdom (1979–80) 2 E.H.R.R. 1 United Communist Party of Turkey v Turkey (1998) 26 E.H.R.R. 121 Vassis v France (App. No.62736/09), judgment of June 27, 2013 Vermeire v Belgium (1993) 15 E.H.R.R. 488 Via#u v Romania (App. No.75951/01), judgment of December 9, 2008 Vin#i# v Serbia (App. No.44698/06), judgment of December 1, 2009 *E.H.R.L.R. 184 Von Hannover v Germany (No.2) (2012) 55 E.H.R.R. 15 Wintersberger v Austria (App. No.57448/00), decision of May 27, 2003 X. v Austria (2013) 57 E.H.R.R. 14 X. and Y. v the Netherlands (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 235 Xenides-Arestis v Turkey (2011) 52 E.H.R.R. 16

Commentary
This judgment is a welcome step forward in preventing discrimination on the grounds of sexual

Page6

orientation and securing equal rights for same-sex couples in relation to the legal recognition of relationships. In line with the developing trend in Europe, the Court made it clear that if a state introduces a form of registered partnership in addition to marriage for different-sex couples it must at the very least put forward cogent reasons for not making it available to same-sex couples. The Court also re-affirmed its decision in Schalk and Kopf that same-sex relationships come within the concept of "family life". However, the Court was careful not to step too far and made it very clear that it was not considering whether there was a positive obligation on the Greek authorities to introduce civil unions for same-sex couples—a question which was also left open in Schalk and Kopf because Austria introduced registered partnerships for same-sex couples after the applicants had lodged their application. Therefore, the impact of the judgment should not be overstated, as it will only apply to states that choose to introduce some form of registered partnership. Judges Casadevall, Ziemele, Jo#ien# and Sicilianos gave a concurring opinion in which they explained why they found a breach of art.14 taken in conjunction with art.8 in this case, but voted against finding such a violation in X. v Austria, even though both cases concerned discrimination based on sexual orientation. They noted that X. v Austria concerned the possibility of the applicant adopting her partner’s child, which raised delicate issues regarding the best interests of the child and the other biological parent’s rights. In contrast, the extension of civil unions to same-sex couples would not raise such issues. They also considered that the laws of the member states in relation to second parent adoption by unmarried couples were sharply divided, whereas there was a very clear trend towards making registered partnerships available to same-sex couples. Judge Pinto de Albuquerque gave a partly dissenting opinion in which he agreed with the respondent State’s argument that the applicants’ had failed to exhaust their domestic remedies and therefore found that all of the complaints were inadmissible. He noted that the applicants did not even try to lodge their claim before the national courts and argued that the Greek courts would have been able to provide an effective remedy by applying Law No.3719/2008 to same-sex couples. The decision in this case could potentially have implications for civil partnerships in England and Wales. When the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 enters into force, both different-sex and same-sex couples will be able to marry, whereas only same-sex couples will be able to enter into a civil partnership. This is a clear difference in treatment based on sexual orientation between people who arguably, following the introduction of same-sex marriage, will be in a comparable situation. However, in December 2013, the European Court of Human Rights decided that the case of Ferguson v United Kingdom (App. No.8254/11), which argued this point, was inadmissible. The decision was made by a single judge and no reasons were given beyond the Court’s opinion that the admissibility criteria set out in arts 34 and 35 were not met. The Government is conducting a review of the future of civil partnerships which will need to take note of this judgment. E.H.R.L.R. 2014, 2, 179-184
© 2014 Sweet & Maxwell and its Contributors

Similar Documents

Free Essay

American Civil Liberties Union: Strategy and Vision

...The American Civil Liberties Union: Strategy and Vision The American Civil Liberties Union, otherwise known as the ACLU, has an extensive and influential history in the United States. The ACLU has ambitious legislative goals in the near future. In order to accomplish these goals, this interest group must fight vigorously for the public’s hearts and minds, as well as the democratic power of Congress. The organization started in the year 1920 after years of anti-war protests and the Red Scare that lead to the infamous Palmer Raids. A group of citizens banded together with the purpose of protecting the basic rights of everyday Americans. While initially, most of the ACLU’s support was directed towards socialist and communist rights, the organization eventually expanded to include minority groups oppressed by discrimination, women’s rights groups, and virtually any citizen who felt their civil liberties had been violated. The goal of the ACLU is to make sure that everyone in the United States is equally protected by the Bill of Rights from government abuse. Although the ACLU is a non-partisan organization, its views tend to typically lean towards the left, and many of its supporters tend to be either liberal or libertarian (votesmart.org). The interest group tends to run into controversy often since it is willing to defend the rights of certain infamous groups such as the Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. It’s important to note that the American Civil Liberties Union is the nation's...

Words: 1623 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Life as a Union Civil War Soldier

...Nancy Roebuck College Writing December 8, 2015 Life as a Union Civil War Soldier On June 2010 at Bedford Village, in Bedford Pennsylvania, our company, “The 105th Pennsylvania Company E” was called upon to battle as the confederates were preparing to gather. The men grabbed their rifles and equipment and fell into line. I was thirteen years old and was ordered to carry the flag of our country. As we joined our battalion, we were told that our company would be head of the battalion. Our company was at the center of the line with my flag being the head of the entire battalion. I was about fifteen yards in front of about 400 men and I was the center point for leading our battalion. I was thirteen years old leading an army into battle. More people should go through the experience of the men and women that kept their town together during times of war and today, in times of peace. Hundreds of fires dotted the battlefield that night. It was in the evening of July 1st 1863 in some small town in Pennsylvania called Gettysburg. The first days fighting had the Confederates pushing us through the town into the hills beyond. The confederates held the town of Gettysburg. The Union soldiers were setting up breastworks, and making rock walls to prepare to defend the high ground on the next day. The bugle call sounded at five o’clock A.M, no sleep this night, heart racing, and thinking of family. I grabbed my gear and prepared for battle. It was a humid, sticky morning and I was already...

Words: 2422 - Pages: 10

Premium Essay

What Role Did Labor Unions Play In The Civil Rights Movement

...In the civil rights movement, the labor unions played an important role. The labor unions and the civil rights movement shared a common goal for better pay and equal rights. They were allies in the African American struggles especially since there were growing amount of African American workers. The unions believed that African American workers and their white coworkers lives intertwine with one another through their concerns for economic security and their anti-discrimination causes. The president of the United Auto Workers (UAW), Walter Reuther was very open in the support of the Civil Rights Movement. Also Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had reached out to his allies in the unions for their financial support and through protests to bring people...

Words: 374 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Same Sẽx Marriage

...Most people believe that they deserve the rights they are granted by the government. An upstanding citizen who pays their taxes, serves their community and abides by the law should be afforded the rights of an American. However, not all citizens are afforded equal rights. Gay and lesbians are consistently denied rights that are typically taken for granted by the average American. Specifically, gay and lesbians couples are denied the right to marry even if they are upstanding citizens. They are held at an unfair disadvantage solely because of their sexual orientation. This discrimination must stop because gay and lesbian couples are law-abiding citizens too, who should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. One common problem that plagues gay and lesbian couples that are denied the right to marry is their inability to claim their partner’s social security after he or she has died. The Human Rights Campaign, which work to achieve equal rights for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender people, is supporting the effort to attain survivor benefits for domesticate partners. They believe, “Any alteration to the Social Security system must include partners of gays and lesbians in its definition of survivor”(Survivor Benefits 1). Currently, there are no programs that give homosexuals survivor benefits like the ones that are provided for heterosexuals who are married or divorced. Gay and lesbian partners are not able to claim benefits of their deceased, regardless...

Words: 1477 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

Same-Sex Marriage

...defenders of traditional marriage contend that tradition is not only a legitimate justification, but is in fact sufficiently important to withstand heightened judicial scrutiny.” (Ford-Mazrui, 2011, para. 1) Society divides themselves based on class: income, religion, finances, ethnicity, etc.; the majority holding control over the minority since the beginning of time. There is and always will be some group of minorities that are segregated. Traditionally, most cultures have defined marriage as a unification of one man and one woman, but tradition has a dark history. Tradition includes the ownership of slaves, incongruous treatment of workers, and the denial of rights to women. The abolishment of slavery, the women’s rights movement, and civil rights proved that tradition should not be made into law and that it can and should be broken when a person’s freedom and human rights are denied. In the 1600s, pilgrims fled England. They did not agree with the King’s law that you must believe in what he believed. They wanted to live and worship as they chose not as they were told. Because of this, they took a stand and left England in search of freedom from...

Words: 2331 - Pages: 10

Premium Essay

Gay Marriage

...Most people believe that they deserve the rights they are granted by the government. An upstanding citizen who pays their taxes, serves their community and abides by the law should be afforded the rights of an American. However, not all citizens are afforded equal rights. Gay and lesbians are consistently denied rights that are typically taken for granted by the average American. Specifically, gay and lesbians couples are denied the right to marry even if they are upstanding citizens. They are held at an unfair disadvantage solely because of their sexual orientation. This discrimination must stop because gay and lesbian couples are law-abiding citizens too, who should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. One common problem that plagues gay and lesbian couples that are denied the right to marry is their inability to claim their partner’s social security after he or she has died. The Human Rights Campaign, which work to achieve equal rights for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender people, is supporting the effort to attain survivor benefits for domesticate partners. They believe, “Any alteration to the Social Security system must include partners of gays and lesbians in its definition of survivor”(Survivor Benefits 1). Currently, there are no programs that give homosexuals survivor benefits like the ones that are provided for heterosexuals who are married or divorced. Gay and lesbian partners are not able to claim benefits of their deceased, regardless...

Words: 1477 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Gay in America

...Name Instructor Houston English 205 September 2, 2013 Gay in America In today’s society Gay men and women have to fight for everything, including the right to marry and have a baby. Gays face many challenges which include a job, a loved one, a family; the right to life, liberty and justice, all these rights are given to all but Gay people. I ask you; is this fair; are Gays not people to? Sometimes even before a gay person comes out they get teased, ridiculed, punished, assaulted and you wonder why some people try to hide it. For a Gay person it can be a constant struggle, just to live and be happy. Everything in a gay person life is a challenge, they must fight for everything. A person that is born has no choice on who they are or what sex they find attractive. Being gay is no different then being attracted to the opposite sex. ABC News reports, “Northwestern University psychology professor Michael Bailey has spent years studying human sexuality. He says sexual orientation is something people are born with, and this orientation makes some gay men more feminine” (1). Yet we blame and punish the families of these gay people. We even try to limit Gay people’s rights. Society believes that being gay is wrong and disgusting. Dr. Berggren claims that “It has long been asserted, primarily by various religious and politically conservative groups, that homosexuality is detrimental to the well-being of any society in which it occurs” (1). Being gay cannot...

Words: 2069 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Gay Marriage

...are undecided on this issue. 36 states have passed legislation banning gay marriages, yet the state of Vermont recently passed a law that allows homosexual couples the right to participate in civil unions. Some other states are also debating whether or not to allow these couples to marry. Unfortunately, the dispute has left the United States homosexual community in an awkward position. There are some people who think that gay people have no rights and should never be allowed to marry. Other people believe that gay people are just like anyone else and should enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals do. I think that the United States should allow these couples to marry just like any other couple. There are many opponents of gay people as it is, and they all have their reasons to dislike the idea of letting them get married. One of the main reasons is that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Because gay couples are unable to have children, they should not be allowed to marry (Schiffen 495). Another main argument is that the word marriage means the union of one man and one woman. This is a long-standing theme of most major Western religions. Under a proposed bill known as the Defense of Marriage act, marriage is defined as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Furthermore, it defines a spouse as “ a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife” (What 1). Under these guidelines, it is quite obvious...

Words: 2010 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Gay Marriage Argumentative Essay

...Same-sex marriage, also commonly referred to as Gay marriage, is a very hotly contested issue that divides a great number of people throughout the world. In this argumentative essay, the topic is explored by three of its main arguments. The first exploration of this topic will involve the ability of same-sex couples to parent as effectively as their heterosexual counterparts. Next, the legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage are explored. Lastly, the religious arguments are evaluated. Both sides of the argument for and against same-sex marriage are discussed while the reader is given a respect for the position of supporting marriage equality. Same-Sex Marriage Traditionally, marriage has been defined as both a religious and civil institution that has been afforded to one man and one woman in the promise of love. Modern, more liberal ideologies have challenged this view. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people have been at the forefront of championing the cause for the right to expand the definition of marriage to allow everyone to enjoy the same rights and privileges, without discrimination, as their heterosexual counterparts. Amongst the privileges that they seek are to love, honor and cherish their spouses in equal recognition to their heterosexual counterparts. This paper argues that LGBT people should be allowed to marry because homosexual couples are citizens with fundamental rights, moral standing, and parental abilities equal to their heterosexual...

Words: 1825 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Same Sex Marriage

...Table of Contents Title Page.................................................................................................................................i Table of Contents....................................................................................................................1 A. Inroduction.........................................................................................................................2 B. Definition...........................................................................................................................3 - 4 C. Issues..................................................................................................................................4 - 8 i. LGBT parenting..........................................................................4 ii. Adoption.....................................................................................4 - 5 iii. Surrogacy and fertility treatment................................................5 iv. Organizations..............................................................................5 - 8 v. Health..........................................................................................8 - 9 D. History..............................................................................................................................9 - 11 i. Ancient......................................................................................

Words: 7674 - Pages: 31

Premium Essay

Marriage and Same-Sex Couples

...Marriage and Same-Sex Couples One of the leading political debates in our country today is the legalization of same-sex marriages. The very image of marriage is evolving on an on-going basis due to society and the major changes between society defined unions. In 2003 Webster’s Dictionary changed the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage. Marriage, as per society, is a special event in almost everyone’s life. Marriage should be about getting married to someone you love. Marriage should be a natural event no matter what sex that person is. It is not just a piece of paper that binds you together; it also involves legal aspects, economic and social issues as well. The focus of this paper will be on these issues and how they are intertwined. When society first started discussing this issue they were set on the fact that it would destroy heterosexual marriage and that it would bring harm to everyone. It has been discussed on every major television program and/or channel. Almost everyone has an opinion on the subject but most will not support it with hard facts. According to revised estimates from the 2010 Census, there were 131,729 same-sex married couple households and 514,735 same-sex unmarried partner households in the United States. In the 2000 Census there were 594,391 households headed by same-sex partners and in 2011. Maggie Gallagher, co-author of “The Case for Marriage,” testified in front of the Senate that gay marriage activists are misrepresenting...

Words: 1962 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Traditional Marrige vs Same Sex Marriage

...Traditional Marriage vs. Modern Day Marriage Communications 215 Traditional Marriage vs. Modern Day Marriage Traditional Marriage is the social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husbands and wife by legal commitments and religious ceremonies. Also defined as the state, condition or relationship of being married; wedlock. Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on culture or subculture in which it is found. (Merriam, 1967) Such a union, often formalized by way of a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony. I will build a foundation of my personal principals and moral values on traditional marriage opposed to modern (same sex) marriage, and their contributions to the American Family. In society today modern same sex marriage (also called gay marriage) is legally and or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. The synonym marriage equality is used especially by supporters of legal recognition of same sex marriage. These two definitions are on very opposite ends of the spectrums in society today. These two very different views have caused a lot of adversity and resistance to the American Family Dream. In closing, my personal viewpoint, religious and political standpoint on the issue may be liberating...

Words: 1026 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Same Sex Marraiges

...All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, but are we allowing gays in New Zealand this? Hi I’m Ashlee and I believe gay marriages should be legal in New Zealand as everyone is entitled to choice. Only Ten countries recognise same sex marriage. New Zealand recognises Civil Unions; however I understand that Same Sex couples who enter into a civil union are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by law to married couples. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, but are we allowing gays in New Zealand this? Hi I’m Ashlee and I believe gay marriages should be legal in New Zealand as everyone is entitled to choice. Only Ten countries recognise same sex marriage. New Zealand recognises Civil Unions; however I understand that Same Sex couples who enter into a civil union are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by law to married couples. Because of this, it stands to reason that legalized gay marriage will ultimately prove beneficial for gay individuals. This, in turn, will be better for gay couples, the families of them, and communities where same sex couples live. It is basic a human right for non-discriminable marriage and New Zealand needs to set an example for other countries that also deny same sex Couples this right. Because of this, it stands to reason that legalized gay marriage will ultimately prove beneficial for gay individuals. This, in turn, will...

Words: 841 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Same-Sex Marriage

...Same-Sex Marriage Chip Dodds COM/172 May 21, 2013 Dr. Rosalind Williams Same-Sex Marriage Same-sex couples should be able to enjoy all of the same spousal rights along with benefits that are concurrent with applicable federal and state statutes that traditional couples enjoy. With more states legalizing same-sex marriages, it is becoming clearer that this is an issue that cannot and will not go away quietly. The politicians that seek to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman are stating that it is perfectly all right legally to discriminate against American citizens solely on the basis of his or her sexual preference. According to the United States Constitution, it is stated that “all men are equal under the law.” For same-sex couples, it is their right to love who they choose to love and provide for their families and loved ones. Under the current laws and statutes, same-sex couples are not allowed to do so. Marriage equality is rapidly becoming a hot topic on the American political landscape. Some of the rights that same-sex couples face include that same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs significantly. Another right that same-sex couples cannot enjoy is that they cannot protect a jointly-owned home from loss because...

Words: 1672 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Gay Marriage

...Homosexuals should be allowed to marry because the disallowance of it violates their constitutional rights. Marriage is an institution long recognized by our government under the right to pursue happiness, and denying that right to any couple, regardless of gender, is unconstitutional. This argument, though, is not disputed. In fact, none of the arguments raised in opposition to the allowance of homosexual marriages takes into account the constitutional rights afforded to all humans. The arguments are only in relation to the possible repercussions (real or imagined) of granting these rights. Our nation was built and has always been based on the fundamental principles of freedom expressed in the Declaration of Independence and through our Constitution. The opponents of homosexual marriage need to remember what freedom means to America, and understand the significance of setting a precedent that denies that freedom. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the institution of marriage is one of the rights guaranteed to all Americans by our Constitution. Banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. Marriage is a basic human right and should not be denied to any individual. At various times in U.S. history, other minorities have been prevented from marrying: African-Americans, for example. Interracial marriage was also legally prohibited in various states, until the Supreme Court ruled such bans unconstitutional in 1967 ("Should Gay" 31). At this time, however, marriage is only...

Words: 1261 - Pages: 6