We need to remember that marriage is a religious rite. Therefore, legalizing gay marriage would represent a type of sacrilege against the institution of marriage. It is furthermore an intrusion of the government into a religious matter and that is not in the scope of power of our government. The union of marriage exists partly for the purpose of having children. Since procreation can only occur between a man and a woman then same-sex marriage would not be able to achieve this purpose.
Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution’s commitments to liberty and equality. Does banning this rite follow suit with the Constitution’s commitment? It is also protected by the Due Process Clause. It makes one consider how Proposition 8 was approved. Gays are a minority group just as African-American’s and other various religious and ethnic groups; the others are allowed to marry, even interracially or with different religious preferences.
Lauren Adams Melissa Helton English 102 2 February 2012 Summary of A. Sullivan’s “For Gay Marriage” & W. Bennett’s “Against Gay Marriage”. Andrew Sullivan and William J. Bennett have very different opinions about legalizing gay marriage. Sullivan suggests it should be legal, but Bennett argues that it would ruin everything marriage stands for in America. In his book Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality (1995), former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan argues that not having gay marriage is a violation of equality. He points out that he is not referring to religious traditions but suggests, in a public institution, marriage should be available to any two citizens.
The Conflict of Gay Marriage in America PHI 103: Informal Logic The Conflict of Gay Marriage in America Part One – Thesis Because America is a country founded on equal rights for all, marriage is a right that must be afforded to homosexuals. Arguments against gay marriage are often supported by religious ideals. In America, where we have freedom of religion or freedom to even choose not to be religious, these arguments should not be considered when forming laws. To do so would not be just. Part Two – Argument “Not allowing gays to marry is discrimination because they do not receive the same legal benefits that married people do.
Symbols are important; they are a common cultural currency which we each use to help create our sense of self. Thus when the traditional nature of marriage is challenged in any way, so are people’s basic identities. By asking legislatures to pass “Defence of Marriage” acts, voters are using the law to create the cultural equivalent of a copyright or trademark on the institution of marriage to prevent it from be challenged too much. In 2003, when a bare majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state to recognize gay marriages, the three dissenting judges based their opposition largely on children. "It is difficult to imagine a State purpose more important and legitimate than ensuring, promoting, and supporting an
Thomas mentions that gay and lesbian marriages should be the choice of the individuals not the government. He promotes gay and lesbian marriages by saying those who vote against gay and lesbian marriage are people of injustice. He states that we cannot solely base our decision on history alone, if so most states would still prohibit the marriage of different races. Thomas states that marriage should promote family and stability and people should not be denied this right. By depriving millions of gay American adults the rights that come from marriage, denies equal protection against the law.
He uses a bisexual who wants to marry two people as a possible example. He does not view upholding marriage to only include a man and a woman as a put down to others. Instead see it as an acknowledgement and celebration of marriage. Bennett feels it is not intolerant to view heterosexual marriage and same sex marriage as different, because “..making distinctions in the law is necessary to relationships that are distinct.” Bennett then moves to social concerns that allowing same sex marriage could cause confusion in children, promote promiscuity, and force the law to allow adoptions that could be detrimental. Bennett closes his article citing the sexual revolution and out of wedlock births as some examples of negative effects on marriage.
This brings up questions and arguments of why they oppose gay marriage. Religion plays a part in this argument; their definition of marriage is between a man and woman as stated in the bible, specifically the book of Genesis (“Should Gary Marriage” 2). In response to their accusation, while from a religious viewpoint marriage is defined between a man and women, marriage is ultimately a legal binding by law. People can be married in a church that may symbolize their marriage, but until they receive a legal documentation of their marriage license they are not considered married. Marriage is also not a religious right in the United States; it is a civil right as stated in the Constitution under the Federal Marriage Amendment (Longley 1).
It is for this reason that states do not have to recognize out of state gay marriages unlike other legal measures protected by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A history of muddied political interpretation has led to measures which overreach principles of federal law, and other similar discriminatory measures like USC section 7’s “definition of marriage and spouse.” The Full Faith and Credit Clause should be upheld in support of gay marriage because constitutionally, not doing so would misconstrue numerous constitutional norms. The Full Faith and Credit Clause normally protect things such as freedom of mobility, the commerce clause, the right to marry, and the right to travel. By not applying the Full Faith and Credit Clause, these liberties are combined and disregarded for a minority group. If a gay marriage (a legal status not a national law) is not guarded by Full Faith and Credit, implications on national economy, family law, and children’s rights are at risk.
Americans across the nation are introduced to the play in school. The play’s main moral is that true love should not and will not be separated. Most Americans agree, yet majority of those same Americans say gay marriage should not be allowed, even if it is a relationship based on great amounts of love for one another. These people would be hypocrites. They say true love should not be rejected, yet they themselves reject the love between homosexuals.