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.
When a minority demands equality with respect to an important right the right should be granted—within reason—especially as the arguments against homosexual marriage is weak . The Australian Liberal and Labour parties have both got strong policies against marriage rights for homosexuals which is undemocratic. The marriage between homosexuals is taking no rights away from heterosexual couples, so why shouldnt they be allowed to get
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.
It is important that we know it is okay to show publicly who we are and what we stand for. Topic Sentence 3: Men and women involved in homosexual activities lead to criminal charges and imprisonment but today, gay and lesbian communities possesses legal benefits and protections. Evidence: 1. In 1999, The supreme court of Canada ruled that same sex couples would have the same benefits and legal finances associated with heterosexual marriage (Phelam 24) 2. Gay Pride Parade/ LGBT (windsorpride.com) 3.
Question: Should the full faith and credit clause uphold gay marriage nationwide? Answer: Yes “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” These words contained in the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been used to unify our states, and provide legal safety nets for a plethora of important binding legalities. Most recently, The Full Faith and Credit Clause had been watered down by other constitutional measures like the 96 “Defense of Marriage Act” but in reality, denying gay marriage national protection under the clause is counter to its purpose and a historical anomaly. Many like current Justice Scalia argue that traditional choice, based on public policy is a standard of US politics and is constitutional. 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.
Social policies that can be linked to this type of family diversity are laws to do with homosexuality in the UK. For example, in 1967 male homosexuality was legalised in the UK this has made homosexuality more socially accepted; this would allow gay couples to start a recognised family. However, other social policies have made same sex families even more accepted. For example, in 2002 the UK adoption laws were changed to allow gay couples to adopt children and create a family unit. Furthermore, in 2004 the Civil Partnership Act meant that gay individuals could now enter into a civil partnership; resulting in the stability and long term commitment of a family.
The Australian Human Rights Commission held inquires into areas of discrimination and human rights; recommendations are made to the government for the removal of discrimination and legislation which doesn’t fulfil with UN human rights treaties. Non-legal responses such as Lobbying by NSW Gay and Lesbian rights lobby argues that the legally recognised institution of marriage shouldn’t exclude same sex couples. It’s agenda is to advocate and promote the issue, to an extent this is seen effective as it generally speaks on behalf of same sex couples. Most of the responses to the recognition of same sex relationships are legal responses, changes to the law have recognised same sex relationships as having the same legal standing as heterosexual de facto relationships this is enforced through the Property (Relationships) Act
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.
My Personal Ethics Statement: I believe that gay marriage should be legal because everyone should be treated with equality no matter what their sexual preference is. It is legal in more states to marry your pets than it is to marry your “life partner”. It has been said that gays make marriage look bad and give marriage a bad name but I disagree with that. Celebrities give marriage and its meaning a bad name when their marriages only last for 72 hours. My Ethical Lens Inventory Discoveries: Through the Ethical Lens Inventory, I discovered that it is designed to help you determine which category of the four ethical lenses you belong to.
Being gay was a strictly private matter for a lot of people and the thought of “coming out the closet” were not appealing if it meant society shunned them. But, for those who openly announced their sexuality and entered relationships with their partners, they set the seeds that grew into a world-wide movement. During the 1960’s, United States, gay and lesbian, Americans started pushing to for more recognized unions and the right to marry (“Overview” 2). But, what initially started the political movement for gay rights was the Stonewall Riots, in the Greenwich section of New York City (Carter 1). It was an early morning on June 28, 1969, when police raided a gay bar at Stonewall Inn.