Recognition of Same Sex Marriages Essay Example

Recognition of Same Sex Marriages

Recognition of Same Sex Marriages

Abstract

Marriage is a critical process in the lifetime of an individual. The decision on whom to marry has been influenced by many factors. However, considering the basic human rights on a global scale, the decision on who to marry who has been viewed as a personal decision. The most common form of marriage is where a man and a woman are involved. However, over the recent years a new form of marriage and relationship has gained fame that involves marrying a person of the same gender. Such marriages have experienced mixed reaction in the public domain on whether they should be recognized or not. This paper focuses on this form of marriage designated as gay and lesbian marriages. Cognitive approach has been made in this paper.

Keywords: marriage, human rights, personal decision, same gender, cognitive approach, gay and lesbian.

Introduction

Globalisation is a major challenge to assimilation of customs and beliefs between communities through social media, trade and other social functions such as sports. Millennium years have faced firing debates on recognition of same sex marriages and relationships
(Schacter, 2009). It has created controversy between socialist, scientist, religious leaders and politicians. Some have utilised this opportunity to gain their political powers through observation of the side supported by the majority. Individuals opting for same sex marriages are faced with mixed reaction that is dependent on the society they are in. in some developed countries, they are allowed engage in same sex marriages as long as they do not force others or anyone into it
(Reinheimer, 2013 ).

Federal Laws and Same Sex Marriages

Under Australian federal law, same sex marriages is treated as genuine form of marriage. Most of Australian territory and States are at liberty to draft their own decrees relating to gay unions registers as well as same-sex partnership plans (Akersten, 2014). However, gay and lesbian couples are prohibited from getting married owing to an outlaw on same sex marriage enclosed within the federal Marriage Act revised by the Howard Government in 2004. Tony Abbott, the current Australia’s Prime Minister, has always been taciturn concerning recognition of same sex marriages across the country. Marriage is an interconnection between law, religion, emotions and financial considerations (Reinheimer, 2013 ).

According to Akersten (2014), a lot of pressure has been subjected to the canadian prime minister to permit federal parliamentarians to recognize same sex marriages and relationships. According to Smith (2014), same sex marriages are illustrated through gays or lesbians that involve marrying a partner from the same gender. Recognizing these forms of marriages has been successful in some European region owing to the need for social democracy in decision making regarding their future relationship. Smith (2014) argues that students in Australia do not comprehend the outlaw of same marriage in Australia, and that is why a student questioned Abbott with regards
to the issue. Abbott has claimed that he is individually opposed to same sex marriage in collaboration with the Liberal and National political by setting out clear cut guiding principle concurring with Abbott view (Akersten, 2014).

Critical Approach as a Solution

Based on the decision of High Court last in 2013, the court posited that federal government had the capacity to amend the marriage bill to recognize same sex marriages. Marriage is both ever-present as well as essential. According to Reinheimer (2013), across Australia, in all States, social class, ethnicity and race and religion have experienced difficulties in identifying a rational argument regarding this matter. Blocking recognition for same sex marriages across the world is viewed as a measure to deny individuals an opportunity to decide and make their personal decisions.

Reinheimer (2013) argues that, barriers in religion has been the major challenge in recognition of these kind of marriages. Leadership of many churches have reacted negative towards this controversial issue. These religions include Christians, Muslims and other religious organizations. With great opposition from the religious groups, acceptance by the civil societies and NGOs associated with human rights argue in favour of the recognition. In addition, there has been push and pull mentality on judicial sector owing to varying legal analysis and conceptions. Ignorance has contributed greatly to the fights and exchange of bitter words experienced so far regarding this issues (Reinheimer, 2013 ).

Conclusion

According to Schacter (2009), there are a number of approaches that can be incorporated into the debate on whether to recognize same sex marriages or not to. The argument laid by feminists should be identified on whether legalizing this new form of marriage would have an impact to this institution of marriage and gender dynamics (Josephson, 2005). Such move would make suggestions that are deeply discussed rather that portraying ignorant arguments on the debate through consideration of their marital structure. Survey and research should also assist in collecting information on what people consider before they marry. Such activities would validate the claims made by different groups in support or against same sex marriage recognition (Schacter, 2009).

Bibliography

Akersten, M., 2014. Student asks Abbott: «Why areyou so against legalising gaymarriage?». Available at:
[Online] http://www.samesame.com.au/news/10688/Student-asks-Abbott-Why-are-you-so-against-legalising-gay-marriage [Accessed 21 March 2014].

Anon., 2013 . Berkeley Journal Of Gender, Law & Justice, Volume 21.

Reinheimer, J., 2013 . Same-Sex Marriage through the Equal Protection Clause: A Gender-Conscious Analysis. Berkeley Journal Of Gender, Law & Justice, 21(1), pp. 213- 240.

Schacter, J. a. S., 2009. The Other Same-Sex Marriage Debate. Scholarly Commons @ IIT, 84(2), pp. 379- 402.

Josephson, J., 2005. Citizenship, Same-Sex Marriage, and Feminist Critiques of Marriage. PPS3, 1(16), pp. 269-284.