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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For example, many Americans oppose the idea of same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Also, due to conservative beliefs many citizens have called for constitutional amendments considering marital union only between a man and a woman as appropriate (Fausset and Blinder, The NewYork Times.com). Just as Brian S. Brown, the president of the National Organization of Marriage stated the following in a New York Times Article “The millions of people who voted that marriage is a union of a man and a woman are not simply going to throw their beliefs away. This fight will continue on regardless of which way the Supreme Court rules” (Fausset and Blinder, The NewYork Times.com). Brown implies the notion of strong beliefs and values serving as chains holding back the proposal of an amendment to the
The first part states, “…purely liberal and republican conceptions of civic identity are seen as frequently unsatisfying to many Americans, because they contain elements that threaten, rather than affirm, sincere, reputable beliefs in the propriety of the privileged positions that whites, Christianity, Anglo-Saxon traditions, and patriarchy have had in the United States (Smith 558).” To me, this says that true liberal ideas such as equality to its fullest extent threaten some groups within American culture. For example, many Christian groups in the United States do not support gay marriage rights because this act is contradictory to their beliefs. Rogers Smith would argue
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.
The Fallacy of Gun Control in America COM/215 The Fallacy of Gun Control in America Proposed gun control laws that ban gun ownership are a violation of every American’s Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and should be rejected. The debate concerning gun control has recently become a major point of contention in America. Any federal law that affects the nation must be made using rational and logical analysis. These analyses should be based on individual rights and perhaps even a little common sense. Although these ideals seem simple to many people, they are lost on the majority of the Democratic Party in America.
Arguments on Gun Control A lot of people feel that some forms of gun laws are needed to lower the level of gun related violence and crimes in the US. The opponents of gun control feel that it would be an infringement on their second amendment rights. The outcome of gun control has strong political implications because it determines the present day meaning of the Second Amendment. Each side has strong points to their arguments but I feel it should be the right of every person to make their mind up for their self. In the1800s the supreme court made the decision that the “right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution” followed up with a decision that states are “free to regulate the rights of citizens to bear arms”.