2008 Woodie Awards
N.J. is third state to enact civil unions
Chris Tomkins '07
Issue date: 2/28/07 Section: Opinion
On Feb. 18, my great state of New Jersey became the third to grant civil unions to same-sex partners. Civil unions give the same benefits under the law as marriages do. According to the Associated Press, these include "rights dealing with adoption, child custody, visiting a hospitalized partner, making medical decisions and getting the same access to health insurance coverage that employers offer spouses of workers."
Amazingly, it does not seem that the world has ended as a result of giving homosexuals these rights. My parents' sacred marriage is still intact, somehow. Maybe if I can keep them away from newspapers for a few days, I can save them the embarrassment of finding out that their own marriage has been somehow devalued by this decision.
To be honest, the embarrassing thing is that it took this long to give homosexuals the same rights that we give heterosexuals. The embarrassing thing is that only New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, California, and Massachusetts give these rights (Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage, and California allows something called a "domestic partnership").
There are many parallels between today's argument over same-sex marriage and the 1950s argument over interracial marriage. Both forms of marriage have been said to simply fall outside the definition of marriage. Both have been called "unnatural" and have been said to somehow degrade the "sacred institution" of marriage. Detractors say that if we allow same-sex marriages, we might as well allow people to marry animals. It is embarrassing that our country still uses the narrow-minded, hateful arguments of segregationists.
These arguments do more than suggest that homosexuals are somehow less than human. In fact, because in America we say all humans have equal rights, any quest to limit the rights of any minority group means one of two things. Either the minority group is less than human, or everyone else is somehow better than human. Some, like former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, say that same-sex marriage should not be allowed because the purpose of marriage should be for procreation and this is not possible in a homosexual relationship. If this is the case, why not criminalize contraception as well? Why not criminalize marriages involving people who cannot procreate because of sexual dysfunctions or handicaps? While we're at it, let's criminalize adultery and divorce. Surely both are greater threats to the "sacred institution" of marriage than gay marriage.
Amazingly, it does not seem that the world has ended as a result of giving homosexuals these rights. My parents' sacred marriage is still intact, somehow. Maybe if I can keep them away from newspapers for a few days, I can save them the embarrassment of finding out that their own marriage has been somehow devalued by this decision.
To be honest, the embarrassing thing is that it took this long to give homosexuals the same rights that we give heterosexuals. The embarrassing thing is that only New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, California, and Massachusetts give these rights (Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage, and California allows something called a "domestic partnership").
There are many parallels between today's argument over same-sex marriage and the 1950s argument over interracial marriage. Both forms of marriage have been said to simply fall outside the definition of marriage. Both have been called "unnatural" and have been said to somehow degrade the "sacred institution" of marriage. Detractors say that if we allow same-sex marriages, we might as well allow people to marry animals. It is embarrassing that our country still uses the narrow-minded, hateful arguments of segregationists.
These arguments do more than suggest that homosexuals are somehow less than human. In fact, because in America we say all humans have equal rights, any quest to limit the rights of any minority group means one of two things. Either the minority group is less than human, or everyone else is somehow better than human. Some, like former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, say that same-sex marriage should not be allowed because the purpose of marriage should be for procreation and this is not possible in a homosexual relationship. If this is the case, why not criminalize contraception as well? Why not criminalize marriages involving people who cannot procreate because of sexual dysfunctions or handicaps? While we're at it, let's criminalize adultery and divorce. Surely both are greater threats to the "sacred institution" of marriage than gay marriage.
Be the first to comment on this story