Marriage or Live-in?
If you call marriage a sacred institution, then is a live-in relationship an act of rebellion. In its essence, living-in was a statement against traditional Indian family values; live-in couples thumbed their noses at the idea that sexual union had to be sanctified by society and state. They also saw themselves as free-spirited libertarians who didn't need the protection of the state in such matters as property rights, inheritance, legitimacy of children etc.
For many gays, marriage is sacred in much the same way it is for heterosexual couples. Once legal protection is sought for cohabitation, then, the latter automatically falls within the belief system of legitimacy and illegitimacy, which is what live-in couples set out to question in the first place. t makes little sense for couples who believe in such an alternative worldview to accept a halfway arrangement that binds them contractually in the eyes of the law and once again forces an institutional order on them. If the halfway arrangement works with gays, it is because the Indian law does not explicitly recognise same-sex marriage. Living-in is a contrarian lifestyle that is a protest against the traditional value system. What is at issue here is not the convenience or otherwise of an arrangement that is midway between living-in and marriage. If the idea is to quicken the separation process, then the same can happen by reforming divorce procedures. Homosexuals may or may not believe in marriage. Indeed, the biggest fear haunting the gay community in the United States today is that president Bush would push through a constitutional amendment that altogether bans same-sex marriage. Which is why it is illogical to bring the gay question into the halfway-house debate. The simple point is: Either one believes in marriage and the rights flowing from it or one doesn't.
Common topics in this essay:
,
same-sex marriage,
halfway arrangement,
marriage sacred,
live-in couples,
|
Acceptance Essays
