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.
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.
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.
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.
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
In turn it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations." Marriage is not about religion, race, or sexual preference. Marriage is about a union between two people who commit themselves to one another, excluding all others, and creating a stable life together to be productive members of society. The Goodridge court stated that their decision, “does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society…[t]hat same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit." It is unconstitutional for the government to infringe upon basic rights of citizens to get married solely because of their racial or sexual
Another example in paragraph two is that “although some people hope to turn back the tide by promoting traditional values, making divorce harder or outlawing gay marriage they are having to confront a startling irony: The very factors that have made marriage more satisfying in modern times have also made it more optional" (171). Coontz makes it know that there
Q) Investigate the contemporary issue relating to family law of the recognition of same sex relationships and evaluate the effectiveness of legal and non-legal responses to the issue. Same sex couples only recently received legal recognition, until 1970’s and 1980’s homosexual activity was a criminal offence. However, in 1975 in Australia South Australia placed legal recognition on homosexual relationships by decriminalising homosexual activity. A significant movement was the amended to the NSW anti-discrimination Act 1977, which prohibited discrimination of the grounds of homosexuality. Nine years later NSW legally recognised same sex relationships by decriminalising sexual activity, the Australian Medical Association removed homosexuality from its list of illnesses and disorders.
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.
Therefore there is not justifiable reason to extend that right to gay couples and in so doing change the very definition of marriage. On the other hand, more liberal citizens, backed by the President as well as many democrats, believe that marriage is right that should be extended to all, no matter of their sexual orientation, and that procreation is not the only reason for marriage, but instead it is the joining of two people that love each other. This controversial issue is being fought in numerous states; however California is undoubtedly the epicentre. Proposition 8 was a referendum passed by the people that banned same-sex marriage. As soon as it was passed into law a multitude of appeals were lodged against it claiming it was unconstitutional, although to begin with proposition 8 was upheld by the courts as constitutional, for example Strauss v. Horton, eventually the Californian 9th circuit Court of appeals ruled it unconstitutional.