14.08.2013 Views

Human Rights at Home and Abroad: Past, Present, and Future

Human Rights at Home and Abroad: Past, Present, and Future

Human Rights at Home and Abroad: Past, Present, and Future

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ability to be married without any form of discrimin<strong>at</strong>ion, but for some reason same-sex couples have been<br />

left out of this right. Marriage is not a realistic thing to them. The right for homosexuals to marry has not<br />

yet happened in the United St<strong>at</strong>es. This is the one basic human right th<strong>at</strong> seems to be unchanging for<br />

homosexuals in the U.S. <strong>and</strong> causing this extremely controversial topic to be never ending. It seems th<strong>at</strong><br />

no m<strong>at</strong>ter wh<strong>at</strong> is being done to overturn this provision against homosexuals the right for these couples to<br />

marry is still being denied to them. Same-sex couples do not have the option to be married based solely<br />

on their sexual orient<strong>at</strong>ion. Richard Mohr the author of the book The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbians <strong>and</strong><br />

Gay Marriage, Equality And <strong>Rights</strong> st<strong>at</strong>es th<strong>at</strong> ―paradigm<strong>at</strong>ic of the denial of queer equality is the<br />

indignity of offering the consol<strong>at</strong>ion prize of ‗civil unions‘ r<strong>at</strong>her than marriage for same-sex couples‖<br />

(Cuomo, 2007, p.83). Chris Cuomo also quotes Mohr by saying, ―the full right to gay marriage as a<br />

remedy th<strong>at</strong> would establish an important freedom but also help establish dignity, by removing the<br />

indignity of th<strong>at</strong> secondary st<strong>at</strong>us, <strong>and</strong> forced complicity with legal structures th<strong>at</strong> maintain inequality‖<br />

(2007, p. 84). Some st<strong>at</strong>es in the United St<strong>at</strong>es seems to think th<strong>at</strong> by offering civil unions to same-sex<br />

couples instead of marriages th<strong>at</strong> it would silence the voices of those who believe same-sex couples<br />

should be able to be considered a legally joined couple. Did those governments really think th<strong>at</strong> this<br />

would happen? Marriage is recognized throughout the entire country <strong>and</strong> is protected by federal laws<br />

while civil unions are only protected under the laws of the st<strong>at</strong>e th<strong>at</strong> they live in, which has to be a st<strong>at</strong>e<br />

th<strong>at</strong> recognizes civil unions. Another fact about civil unions is th<strong>at</strong> these couples have no way of<br />

separ<strong>at</strong>ed once committing to each other. People who are married have the option of divorce, where as<br />

once two people join a civil union there is no way to elimin<strong>at</strong>e their agreement to each other. Another<br />

difference between marriages <strong>and</strong> civil unions is th<strong>at</strong> since the federal government does not recognize<br />

civil unions, same-sex couples must fill out forms as a single family <strong>and</strong> not as partners. This separ<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

establishes th<strong>at</strong> some of the American people cannot come to an agreement th<strong>at</strong> everyone, including<br />

homosexuals, should have the same human rights.<br />

The United Kingdom‘s government appears to have similar beliefs he issue of same-sex marriage<br />

as the United St<strong>at</strong>es. It looks as if this basic human right is the only one th<strong>at</strong> homosexuals are still be<br />

68

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!