Same-Sex Marriages: A state or federal affair?

Same-Sex Marriages: A state or federal affair? Related Information:

In February 2004, President George W. Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment that defines the term “marriage” as the unification between two people of the opposite sex. Bush said, “ If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America."

This revision, known as the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), declares the federal definition of marriage to be the union of a man and a woman.

The announcement of such an amendment might have been a loss for those in the gay and lesbian community, but it provided enough flexibility that would enable each state to decide on its own if civil unions should be legal. Those individuals who are joined in a civil union enjoy many of the same state-entitled benefits and rights as married couples, but they are excluded from federal privileges.

Same-sex marriages are legal marriages between two people of the same gender. The key difference between a marriage and a civil union is that only marriage is granted federal benefits. In May 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in the Union to allow same-sex marriages.

Along all avenues, same-sex marriages cannot be considered just a state affair or regarded as simply a federal matter. The topic of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships pertains to rights, benefits and privileges on both levels.

For instance, in the state of Vermont, couples are allowed to have civil unions. They are afforded the same benefits by the state as married persons including but not limited to: g roup insurance for state employees, spouse abuse programs, protection against discrimination based upon marital status, victim's compensation rights, workers' compensation benefits, and emergency and non-emergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification .

Sadly though, despite the opportunity for couples in Vermont to be allowed the opportunity for civil unions, such relationships are unrecognized in other states where civil unions are considered illegal. Also, civil unions do not enjoy the 1,049 federal benefits that married couples are entitled to. These benefits and rights include but are not limited to: insurance breaks, sick leave to provide care to a sick partner, Social Security survivor benefits, bereavement leave, and assumption of partner’s pension.

But to deny a couple the opportunity to marry when they are of the same sex challenges the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution which states that rights that are granted to one person cannot be withheld from another individual.

So, where does this leave same-sex couples? The answer lies within both state and federal levels. Individuals should be permitted to enter into a same-sex marriage and be provided all of the benefits and rights that members of opposite sex marriages have. Why should heterosexuals be given freedoms and rights simply because of their sexual orientation? Shouldn’t this be a matter for both the state and federal government to rectify?

If a same-sex married couple is denied the federal benefits that other married couples enjoy, that is unconstitutional. The laws must be amended to allow for all marriages not just those for heterosexuals. In denying the privileges to those of the same gender, as a country the United States is also denying basic human rights. Many opponents of gay and lesbian marriages feel that by allowing same-sex unions, there would be a great demoralization of the traditional view of marriage and the raising of children. But it certainly is possible that the opposite would be true -- that legalizing same-sex marriages could actually strengthen the institution by encouraging more accessibility to more people.