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.
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 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.
I’m gay but I oppose “Gay Rights” as an entity of its own. I think the LGBT community needs to merge their struggles into the rest of civil rights. Now, some of you may be confused as to why I’m arguing against my own rights but I’m not, and I’ll tell you why. We need human rights, not gay rights. We need rights that protect all humans whether they are Asian, gay, blind, autistic, religious or whatever it is that the system wants to discriminate against.
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.
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
Gay Pride Parade/ LGBT (windsorpride.com) 3. Rights and benefits include : In hospital visitation, taxation, inheritance rights, health coverages, protection in end of relationships (gaymarriage.procon.org) Analysis/Explanation: What we have gone through as a Canadian society in terms of gay marriage being against the law and punishable by death, it is clear we have come a long way. Gay marriage is not only legal, but is celebrated and treated as equal rights. There will always be individuals that will be homophobic or completely against the idea of gays and lesbians but they will have to deal with that because we live in a society that welcomes
He was very descriptive in conveying his thoughts on the proposition. He also pointed out the flaws in heterosexual relationships, and posed the questions to why it matters to them. Flawlessly spoken, Olbermann fired back to the Proposition Eight, by challenging the Proposition’s main argument. The prop used the term “re-defining” marriage, thus raising the question of interracial couples, and the fact that slaves couldn’t marry. His rebuttal made a valid point that lead you to question the sanctity of 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.