1.0 Introduction
Gay marriage is one of the most controversial issues in the modern world. For the past thousand years, marriage has been recognized as the social union between a man and a woman. In most cultures across the globe, homosexuality was viewed with disdain, and marriages between same-sex couples were forbidden.
However, homosexual relationships are slowly gaining acceptance, as homosexuals have become vocal in fighting their right to marry in the early 90s. With an increased in tolerance for homosexuality in the society, the controversy over the legalization of gay marriage has been disputed among people in many nations. While the majority of the population believes that the legalization of gay marriage will have negative impact on the society, gay activists claim that it is against basic civil rights to prohibit them from marrying.
This report will first review the history of battle to legalizing gay marriage, and the current status in today’s world. It will then examine the reasons for and against the legalization of gay marriage. The conclusion will summarize the main arguments
2.0 Overview of gay marriage
2.1 History
Same-sex marriage is nothing new, with historical evidence showing that marriage has not always been the institution between heterosexuals. Gay marriages have existed in some form around 600 years ago. (Tulchin, 2007) Since early 1960’s, gay activists have been striving for the right to marry. However, the issue of gay marriage only arose from the 1990’s, as three same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the state of Hawaii for the prohibition of gay marriage in US. The case has come to a conclusion that banning gay marriage is not constitutional, as there is no real practical reason and compelling arguments for it. (Bower, 2010)
This event had triggered the world’s attention over the next decade and consequently led to the creation and approval of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1998. This law is exercised in the US and it has further defined the term marriage, solely as the legal union between a man and a woman. (Bower, 2010) In addition, this law asserts that no states in the US are required to recognize same-sex marriage that is performed in other places. (Masci, 2007)
Although gay marriage is not allowed in many countries, some places provide an alternative – civil union, as a compromise. In order to reduce controversy, the term civil union was used in replace of marriage, and it is an institution that offers same-sex couples all the rights, benefits and privileges that are equivalent to marriage. (Kirk, 2010)
In 1989, Denmark was the first country to establish civil union laws. Since then, many other countries, including Australia and some states in the US, have adopted the civil union law in attempt to resolve the problem of gay marriage. (Ellis-Christensen, 2010)
Despite the establishment of civil union, advocates of gay marriage have never stopped battling for the right to marry. They indict that civil union do not include all the legal benefits, or the cultural significance of marriage. (Infoplease, 2007) For instance, all benefits and rights granted to a civil partnership are restricted within the state, as DOMA has denied the recognition from the federal government. Also, supporters of gay marriage argue that civil union cannot replace marriage, and it is just an alternative way of segregating gay couples from the society. (Kirk, 2010) This debate on the legalization of marriage will continue in the next few decades.
Anti-bullying 
While same-sex marriage became a hot topic following the decision of the Supreme Court, it became especially an interesting topic to discuss when it came to the major religious traditions. Some prohibited it and disagreed with the decision, others agreed and sanctioned it in their churches, temples, and other religious places of worship, and still others had no one standing on the issue, but each decision was based on some religious and moral standing. Sacred texts and language, interpreters as well as interpretations, as well as the power of the religious leaders all are important in discussing the debate around same-sex marriage and religiosity. While these factors determined how some, not all, people in these religions saw the Supreme Court ruling, these factors are what lead debates on the propriety and positions these religions took publicly on the matter. Some thought it fit for the progression of human rights to allow same-sex couples to marry while others thought it went against their beliefs and this determined their civility and how they handled same-sex couples wanting to get married, but it did not determine the fact that it is allowed in America itself. Same-sex couples can get married.
Although these religions have specific standpoints and understandings on their decisions in their traditions and hardly spoken to each other about the concern of same-sex marriage, it was often within religious traditions where disagreement occurred on whether the act of allowing same-sex marriage was “wrong or right.” At times, like in the example of the ELCA, other Christians simply disagreed with the ELCA even considering allowing same-sex couples to marry in their churches, but it did not change either viewpoints. The ELCA used language and interoperation of marriage to decide on sanctioning marriage with traditional biblical interpretation. The same goes for Islam and Hinduism, although in different ways. Hinduism, more so, listened to the time and space of the circumstance therefore finding it proper or fitting to agree or disagree with the legalization of same-sex marriage. Some Hindu leaders did and some didn’t, but it was on the grounds of judgement with the religion itself and not with other religious views. For a specific sect of Islam it was the Qur’an and their religious interpretation which lead to their decision. Picking out verses and interpreting accordingly established their view on subject and others had no say.
Often when it comes to religion, moral decision making is on the grounds of religious history and interpretation and conversations religious have with religious texts and other religious leaders that lead proper and just ways of dealing with moral issues. Because it’s not an argument of “which religion is right or wrong” that hold these kinds of religious standpoints together (those that are based on individual religious moral views on issues like same-sex marriage), but on “what does my sacred text or leaders say about the issue,” then it is not a debate between religions but among religions which establishes the power on how these religions establish and make moral judgements about moral issues
LikeLike