Same sex mariage in Switzerland

Same sex marriage in Switzerland

While Canada, Portugal, Spain and several other countries have legalized same sex marriage, it is still not accepted in Switzerland. Indeed, on June 5, 2005, the country introduced civil union^[1], which allows same sex couples more rights than before, but still, for example, they cannot adopt children or make use of medically assisted procreation. Therefore, it cannot be considered equal to marriage but rather more of a partnership.

This distinction is unequitable, as lesbian and gay people should be allowed to benefit from the same rights as heterosexuals. Indeed, as stated in the first article of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” (United Nations). From this perspective, considering same sex marriage as unlawful does not seem justified anymore. Furthermore, on a national level, the Swiss Constitution also claims (in the fourth article) that we are all equal with regards to the laws in force in our country, and does not mention anything about same sex marriage being forbidden. The fact that same sex marriage is still not allowed in Switzerland is an aberration that need to be changed. As Switzerland is a democracy, the only reason why same sex marriage is not recognised yet is because the majority of Swiss people are hostile to this idea, and as a logical consequence, there is no law that allows it.

One argument often advanced by people who are not in favour of same sex marriage concerns children. Indeed, as reported by Aurélie Delmas, in “Le 20 minutes”, many people claim that the point of marriage is to procreate, and therefore, same sex marriage is pointless and should not be recognized as a traditional marriage. As established by the Washington Family Research Council, “the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society.” However, this argument is inconsistent, regarding the fact that more than 20% of the married couples do not have children in Switzerland. Indeed, as stated on the official website of Swiss federal statistics, only 80% of the married heterosexual couples have children (bfs.admin.ch), which is a good reason to rebut such an argument. If heterosexual couples have the right to get married without being forced to have children, it would seem logical that the opposite situation should also be acceptable, as the argument that marriage involves children is flawed.

Another point which is often raised concerning children is that a child needs to be looked after by both a father and a mother. Indeed, people claim that if homosexual couples were allowed to get married, and then to have children (as for them, marriage is meant for procreation), it would “create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father … and often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers” (Pruett, 204). However, this argument cannot be taken seriously as Swiss legal system allows single parents to adopt children. Therefore, it would be considered nonsense to allow the education of a child by a single man or woman, but to disallow it in the case of a homosexual couple, as a child will not be emotionally well-adapted in both cases. Indeed, when considering the theory raised by people opposed to it, children would need a father and a mother to be properly educated (frc.org)^[2].

Traditions, and especially marriage are important concepts for many conservative people, who believe that allowing same sex marriage would be changing years of tradition, and that it would harm the institution of marriage. As stated in the article entitled “Should Gay Marriage Be Legal”: "Throughout the history of the human race the institution of marriage has been understood as the complete spiritual and bodily communion of one man and one woman.” This idea, that traditions should change, is totally inadequate as they were thousands of traditions which have changed for the better, such as dictatorial rule by kings and emperors, the lack of any legally recognized human rights, the prohibition on land ownership by people without royal blood, ritual human sacrifice, or even curing medical ailments with spells and magic. All these old traditions are fortunately no longer practised, and their abolition should convince people who claim that traditions should be preserved. If an old practice is inappropriate, it is common sense to ban it from our practices. For this reason, it is an aberration to stick to a tradition for the only reason that it “has always been that way”. If marriage is the result of the choice of being united, made by two persons who love each other, it should not be forbidden between homosexuals. Indeed, change is sometimes necessary and beneficial in order to improve a situation, as demonstrated in the previous examples.

This last point raises another issue, the fact that Swiss people seem to be afraid of change. Indeed when it comes to novelty, they tend to consider the disadvantages only. This is demonstrated in many ways, such as their refusal to be part of the EU, or the fact that the majority of their political parties are conservatives and right-wing. In our case, same sex marriage would be an issue for conservative people, as allowing it would mean a draft bill with modified terms. Indeed, the words “mother” and “father” would be changed to “parents” and “husband” and “wife” to “spouses”, as Delmas states. This change, among others, makes some people sceptical because it would be nonsensical regarding specific systems of maternity or paternity, such as parental leave. However, this argument is unfounded as it wishes to compare the upbringing of children in a peaceful and favourable environment with administrative complications engendered by minor shifts in lexical and semantical meanings. (For instance, the words “father”, “mother”, “husband” and “wife”, as mentioned previously). These two subjects are incomparable as they stand on two different levels of discussion; the first being a sentimental and welfare feeling and the other a structural political endeavour. Indeed, someone’s happiness should not be impeded because of the fear of small changes, such as an administrative issue.  Furthermore, these changes have already been applied in some states of the United States without destroying the country stability or having any bad consequences (Joyner). 

...