|
INTRODUCTION The proposed legalization of same sex marriage is one of the
most significant issues in contemporary American family law. Presently, it is
one of the most vigorously advocated reforms discussed in law reviews, one of
the most provocative issues. It could be one of the most revolutionary policy
decisions in the history of American family law. The potential consequences,
positive or negative, for children, parents, same-sex couples, families, social,
structure public health, and the status of women are enormous. Given the
importance of the issue, the value of comprehensive debate may be obvious.
Marriage is much more than a commitment to love one another. Aside from
societal and religious conventions, marriage entails legally imposed financial
responsibility and legally authorized financial benefits. Marriage instantly
provides a automatic legal succession of a deceased spouse's property, as well
as pension and law, as well as promise in the eyes of the Lord, and their as
well as to enjoy its benefits, should the law prohibit their request merely
because they are of the same gender?
I intend to prove that because of Article IV of the United States
Constitution. there is no reason why the federal government nor any state
government should restrict marriage to a predefined homosexual relationship?
Marriage laws have changed throughout the years. In Western law, wives are now
equal rather than subordinate partners; interracial marriage is now widely
accepted, both in the statue and in society; and marital failure itself, rather
than the fault of one partner, may be grounds in some states for a divorce.
Societal changes have been felt in marriages over the past twenty-five years as
divorce rates have increased.
Proposals to legalize same-sex marriages or to enact broad domestic
partnership laws are currently being promoted by gay and lesbian activists,
especially in Europe and North America. The trend in western European nations
during the past decade has been to some same-sex couples. For example, with in
the past six years, three Scandinavian countries have enacted domestic
partnership laws allowing same-sex couples in which at least one partner is a
citizen of the specified country. Therefore allowing that homosexual marriages
are given. In the Netherlands, the Parliament is considered domestic partnership
status for same-sex couples, all the major political parties favor recognizing
same-sex relations, and more than a dozen towns have already done so.
Finland provides governmental social benefits to same-sex partners. Belgium
allows gay prisoners the right to have a conjugal visits from same-sex partners.
An overwhelming majority of European nations have granted partial legal status
to homosexual relationships. In the United States, efforts to legalize same-sex
domestic partnership have had some, limited success. The Lambda Legal Defense
and Education Fund, Inc. reported that by mid- 1995, thirty-six municipalities,
eight countries, three states, five state agencies, and two federal agencies
extended some benefits to, or registered for official purposes, same-sex
partnerships. In 1994, the California legislature passed a domestic partnership
bill that provided official state registration of same-sex couples and provided
limited marital rights and privileges relating to hospital visitation, willis
and estates, and powers of attorney.
While California's Governor Wilson eventually vetoed the bill, its passage by
the legislature represented a notable political achievement for advocates of the
same-sex marriage have won a major judicial victory that could lead to the
judicial legalization of the same-sex marriage or to legislation authorizing
same-sex domestic partnership in that state. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court,
in Baehr vs. Lewin, vacated a state circuit court judgment dismissing same-sex
discrimination under the state constitution's Equal Protection Clause and Equal
Rights Amendment. The above case began in 1991 when three same-sex couples who
had been denied marriage licenses by the Hawaii Department of Health brought
suit in state court against the director of the department.
Hawaii law required couples wishing to marry to obtain a marriage license.
While the marriage license law did not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage at
the time, it used terms of gender that the Hawaii marriage license law is
unconstitutional, as it prohibits same-sex marriage and allows state officials
to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples in account of the heterosexuality
requirement. Baehr and her attorney sought their objectives entirely through
state law, not only by filing in state rather than federal court, but also by
alleging exclusively violations of state law--the Hawaii Constitution. the state
moved for judgment on the pleadings and for dismissal of the complaint for
failure to state a claim; the state's motion was granted in October, 1991.
|
