Marriage for All: where is discomfort actually hiding?


Anita Nulleshi


The union of homosexual couples is accompanied for ages with great controversy. It seems that post-modern society in which tolerance, respect, secularism and democracy are advocated as essential to peace, is challenged on the subject of the legalization of gay marriage couples.

Marriage in its classical definition, as established in various parts of the world, is any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union that form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities.

Thus, as one can conclude from this definition, the fact of legal prohibition of civil unions for same-sex couples is denying the equality of all and demotion of homosexuals to second-class citizens, having a hierarchical design of sexual orientation which places heterosexuality at the peak of the pyramid.

Certainly, in countries like France, for example, since 1999, homosexual couples as heterosexual also have opportunity to join by signing a civil solidarity pact (PACS), or establishment of cohabitation. However, none of this acts do not offer the same legal rights as civil marriage. Since then, France has authorized with Act No. 2013-404 of 17 May 2013 marriage between people of the same sex. Moreover the opposition remained considerably high compared to other European countries.

Casting a glance at the Eastern Europe, specifically the Balkans, it is noted that in a country such as Kosovo, the union of same-sex couples is not legal. Yet the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, Article 37, paragraph 1 states that “based on free will, everyone enjoys the right to marry and the right to establish a family in accordance with the law”. It seems that the Kosovar government and the Assembly refused to positively implement Article 37 of the Constitution by prohibiting civil unions of homosexual couples.

Opting for a rejection of gay marriage, it is in a sense, like it or not,reveals homophobia, even though many citizens who declare to be against the gay marriage but who “have homosexual friends that they tolerate perfectly.”

Furthermore, going against this reform, can lead to xenophobia, like the racism that excommunicate people due to their skin color.

Why people are afraid? From people who have a preference for one sex over another? In this case‘another” represent so-called “natural” social standard.

Obviously a country which adopts a law in favor of gay marriage will undoubtedly ensure the implementation of protections and accountability of its citizens.However, the State has a legitimate government allowing demonstration of strength of his power. In this case, that power will be positive as it tends to advocate freedom and citizenship of every individual.

Defending the rights for civil marriage of gay couples is much more than a political fight. To state loud and clear, in any democratic society is called a universal position, which has the merit of being a necessary, legitimate and progressive reform. Indeed, today there are many countries that have legalized gay marriage, though discrimination against these remain omnipresent. In this respect, the need to accept this evolution of marriage as part of a logical continuation of the history of mankind, is the fierce struggle against inequality in general.


42 Articles Written