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.
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.
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.
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.
This also confirms with my knowledge in the fact that the conservative leaders were opposed to the women suffrage due to the fact that it would have meant them having to change their ethos, conservative never mentioned allowing women the right to vote in their manifestos. They did not mention this in their manifestos as this would of have meant that they would of lost out on votes for them to become the main party in government, and therefore did not really mention women’s suffrage, but they did oppose it. The leaders did not really mention women’s suffrage because of the fact the backbenchers would of have really opposed their leaders and therefore the party would of have become split and therefore not a strong party. Not only this but the leaders did not mention the women’s suffrage because the house of lords opposed it, meaning that the conservative party would of have been looked down on rather then looked up on by the house of lords if they had mentioned / forwarded the
The Matthew Shepard/Hate Crimes Act expands existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which would drop the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity. The Republican Party has voted against the proposal several times. Republicans to believe that no one should face violence because of who they are and that anyone who commits a violent crime should face tough penalties. However, Republicans do not believe that hate crimes is a federal issue or that there should be a longer sentence because of the views of the perpetrator or the identity of the victim. The Democratic Party feels that those who commit hate crimes should be punished no matter whether those crimes are committed on account of race, gender, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.
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.
In the past, in many cultures, people who thought that they were homosexual kept that information to themselves because they could be stigmatized or even persecuted if they disclosed the truth (Shriner & Shriner). In the news today, you hear about businesses refusing to make “gay wedding cakes” that are against their beliefs. Religion has played a large role in forming the stigma against homosexuals in all cultures. You often hear of homosexuality being a sin and not of god. However, there seems to have been a noticeable change in the attitudes and perceptions of those living in Western cultures (Shriner & Shriner).
They have also threatened to take legal action against it upon its passage. It will also put an unfair financial burden on state governments. In conclusion, I believe that there is no way to know if this innovation will be a trend in the future. The reason I say this is because so many people are against it. Even though 42% of Americans favor it and want to keep it in place.