Sullivan says that minors and close family members should not be given the right to marry because minors are unable to understand such a commitment. The marriage of close family members creates incest, which threatens the trust and responsibility the family needs to survive. Sullivan asks if homosexuals fall in the same categories. Sullivan says that “domestic partnership,” a conservative concept, is one of the strongest arguments for gay marriage. Domestic partnerships qualify for benefits previously reserved for heterosexual married couples.
Since procreation can only occur between a man and a woman then same-sex marriage would not be able to achieve this purpose. There is a huge disconnection between homosexuality, and procreation and therefore, marriage. Lastly, homosexual relationships are abnormal and unnatural. Even though in today’s society, gay couples might be tolerated socially that does not mean gay marriage should be validated by the government. Using the same argument same-sex couples should not receive federal benefits.
He begins with stating that the case must determine if the petitioners “were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.". He felt that personal choices such as homosexuality might not be formally recognized by the law, but liberty granted by the constitution gives those persons that choice and they should not be charged as criminals in doing so. He communicated that Sodomy Laws, along with others like it in other states, were rooted within Judeo-Christian beliefs. Furthermore, the Texas Sodomy Law was more of a moral law instead of one that protected citizens. He did not specifically say that the Texas Sodomy Law was wrong but that the petitioners had “constitutionally-protected liberty” which the Texas Sodomy Law violates.
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.
So basically what the gay community are suggesting is not ‘equal rights’ but ‘extra rights’, which leads me smoothly onto my next point. If the government hit their head and in the state of concussion decide to make same sex marriage legal, it would only be fair to make acceptances for other forms of banned marriages, marriages of which are considered incest, bigamy, and under aged. There’s reason we have restrictions placed upon marriage, those mainly being to keep up traditions and to protect the well being of our society. For instance, I’m pretty sure allowing 13 year old love birds to get married wouldn’t contribute to lowering the divorce rate, or condoning brothers and sisters to be wed and fill our country with their disabled offspring is such a good idea. I have come across no compelling reasons that would suggest homosexual marriages are to the well-being of
There are pictures on vases that depict a man inserting his penis between a boy’s legs but not in the anus. I think that given the historical views of homosexual behaviors it makes some people think that it is still wrong and should still be hidden from people. It also depends on how a person was raised in my opinion. If a person was raised to believe that it is a sin to enter into homosexual relationships then they will try to hide it from everyone for as long as possible. However, if a person was raised to believe that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual then they will be more likely to be open about it.
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.
She uses Michael Jordan as an example of his masculinity in sports and femininity in dressing style. We do not generally poke fun at Jordan because he already has gained that respect from the public. To this point, Bordo draws an implication that men are afraid to dress well because they do not want to be judged by everyone else as a metrosexual and be stereotyped as a homosexual. Most try to stay inside the norms which expectations have created for us (in a way taking out uniqueness) and dare not to venture out. Bordo and I would both agree that as long as a man is secure with his own sexuality he will not have a problem dressing the way he would like
The understanding of sodomy or homosexuality was based on the violation of this collaboration, since it was not possible to procreate with two men interacting (Nesvig, 2001). Michelle Vovelle defines this territory as both ideology and mentality. In this model ideology represents the more formalized discussions that bear on a particular subject. Mentalities are less definable, more fluid, and derive from collective representations. Mentality concerning homosexuality includes popular attitudes, social customs, response to Church teachings, reaction to law, as well as beliefs, customs, and concerns of homosexual and bisexual men (Nesvig, 2001) The long-cherised assumptions of patriarchy and male-dominated sexuality have guided the historiography of homosexuality in Latin America.
The authors viewpoint of the Puritans provides a useful account on the Puritan Culture that relates to the history of America through the barring of different personal liberties. The Puritans while banning some simple pleasure were widely open to sexual ones. They encouraged sex between married couples and through time began to grow indifferent to other sexual crimes through reason of human nature. The Puritans are still regarded as the more extremist of the settlers, but they are not nearly as dull or wrathful as some historians