Respecto a las Uniones Civiles


La última semana el debate de los candidatos presidenciales con mayor soporte en las encuestas toco la controversia de las uniones civiles de personas del mismo sexo. Resulta sorprendente que todavía esa clase de declaraciones se realice con tanto miedo e inconsistencia, en lugar de tomar posiciones más claras y acordes a una lógica de derechos humanos.

A modo de ejemplo el primer artículo de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos indica que somos iguales en dignidad y derechos; el artículo segundo indica que nadie por condición alguna puede ser excluido de los derechos de esta declaración; el artículo siete señala que somos todos iguales ante la ley y que esta debe proteger a las personas de cualquier discriminación arbitraria; finalmente el artículo 16 señala que todas las personas en edad núbil tienen derecho a contraer matrimonio y que el Estado y la sociedad deben proteger a la familia, la cual no es definida ni determinada de modo alguno.

Resulta indignante que en un país donde rige el Estado de Derecho aún no se hayan reconocido explícitamente los derechos y garantías de importantes sectores de la población, discriminación que no se limita a las opciones sexuales y cuya superación es fundamental para una sana democracia y una vida en conjunto que pueda ser Feliz.

A continuación les dejamos un artículo del New York Times sobre la situación legislativa en Estados Unidos respecto a esta controversia.

Leonardo Valenzuela

Sociólogo UC

Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships

Lou Dematteis/Reuters

Two states passed laws in 2009 legalizing same-sex marriage, and the top court in a third state permitted the marriage of gay couples, changing the landscape surrounding an issue that brings together deeply held principles and flashpoint politics.

Same-sex marriage first became a reality in the United States in 2004, after the Supreme Court in Massachusetts ruled that it was required under the equal protection clause of the state’s Constitution. Connecticut began allowing same-sex marriage in late 2008. In April 2009, Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing gay couples to marry, and the legislatures of Maine and Vermont passed laws granting the same right in the following weeks. In California, after a court decision in 2008 allowed the marriages, a voter referendum that November, upheld in court in May 2009, barred them.

Civil unions, an intermediate step that supporters say has made same-sex marriage seem less threatening, are legal in New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont. The latter two states are phasing them out after adopting same-sex marriage laws.

The issue of same-sex marriages came to the fore after the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in 1993 that the denial of marriage licenses to three homosexual couples amounted to unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex — not sexual orientation — unless the state could show a compelling reason for the denials. The question of a compelling reason was sent to a lower court for a decision.

The Hawaii Legislature passed a bill in 1994 affirming marriage as intended for “man-woman units” capable of procreation. But in 1996, conservatives, fearful that the court case would lead to the sanctioning of marriages of lesbian and gay couples in Hawaii by the end of 1997, campaigned across the nation to insure that the recognition of same-sex marriages would not spread to other states.

The legislative battle picked up momentum as more conservatives became convinced a federal law was required. They envisioned a time in the not-too-distant future when lesbian and gay residents of their own states would fly to Hawaii and return with official marriage licenses. If they did not act and that should come to pass, their states would be left with an obligation under the United States Constitution to recognize those marriages.

In September 1996, the United States Congress, approving what was called the “Defense of Marriage Act,” voted overwhelmingly to deny Federal benefits to married people of the same sex and to permit states to ignore such marriages sanctioned in other states. The bill was signed by President Bill Clinton.

In 1998, Hawaii voters, and those in Alaska as well, rejected, in ballot initiatives, the legalization of same-sex marriages. Other states, both before and after the 2004 Massachustts court decision, have done the same.

Para continuar leyendo:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html

Un Comentario

  1. Conust

    Busque demasiada informacion sobre el tema para un trabajo de la universidad asi que se del tema y quiero decirte que estoy muy de acuerdo con lo que dices. Saludos

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: