On the Scales of Justice
Although it may be virtually impossible to delve into all of the details of every country's legislature, it is perhaps safe to assume that a common legal definition of marriage can be arrived at through an observation of what is generally practiced throughout the world.
Historically, certain countries, nations, states and tribes have come to legally accept certain marriage practices. In Utah for example, its state government once sanctioned the practice of polygamy, with the practice extending even into the early part of the 20th century. To date however, it has been generally understood by many countries that according to civil law, marriage should mean a legally sanctioned union between two individuals to the exclusion of others. Usually one of these two individuals is a male and the other a female. Such a legally sanctioned marriage should bring with it certain economic benefits that a country's government is obliged to give.
The Evolution of Marriage
At present however, the common legal definition of marriage as understood by majority of the world has come to evolve dramatically. Since 2001, five countries have legalized, same sex marriage with Netherlands taking the forefront, followed by Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005) and South Africa (2006). In these countries, couples in same sex marriages enjoy the same/ equal benefits as heterosexual married couples.
In Europe and North America where the cost of living is no laughing matter, it has indeed become a big deal for same sex couples to be afforded equal rights as heterosexual couples. In the United States for example, married couples are granted an estimated 400 state rights and 1,000 federal rights. These rights include provisions for medical, insurance, inheritance and tax benefits. Same sex couples therefore who are not married but who are into committed relationships are legally denied these rights and benefits.
The state of Massachusetts has become the first American state to legalize same sex marriage within its territory. In 37 other states however, local governments have instituted Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) that expressly prohibit same sex marriage.
It has been argued however that DOMAs can control only the institution of marriage but cannot prevent legislature from enacting laws that will cover other types of relationships. Although advocates of same sex marriage in the United States have not aggressively acted upon this realization several countries like Denmark, Finland, Germany, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland have decided to enact such laws covering civil unions, civil partnerships and registered partnerships. Under these laws, same sex couples that enter into legal agreements enjoy some but not all of the benefits of married heterosexual couples. In some countries for example a same sex couple may enjoy economic benefits but are not allowed to adopt.
Civil Unions and Partnerships
For some, civil unions and partnerships may already be acceptable arrangements but others contend that these arrangements are still unacceptable because of the implicit and explicit signs of unequal treatment. Among democratic countries, proponents of same sex marriage have even gone to the extent of labeling government laws as unconstitutional since discriminating against same sex couples goes against equal protection rights.
Legal opponents of same sex marriage go on to counter argue that marriage is indeed a right but it is a natural right borne out of the state's natural function to promote procreation. Proponents however rebut this argument by pointing out that laws in most countries do not prohibit childless heterosexual couples from staying married despite their inability to reproduce. The argument on procreation has even become nearly inconsequential because of governments' obvious support for contraception.
Benefits Allotment
The legal debate may rage on indefinitely but taken as a whole, the legal aspect of same sex marriage is fast becoming an issue of benefits allotment. Undeniably, same sex couples may want to marry because of the economic benefits. The connotation of this realization however should not appear derogatory or negativistic. It is to be supposed that many same sex couples enter into relationships because of genuine love. The demand for the legal benefits of marriage comes naturally. Indeed, why should same sex couples that love genuinely not be “rewarded” by the state in the same way as heterosexual couples? Perhaps this legal debate is simply just all about asking for what rightfully belongs to individuals.
