Marriage solely being between a man and a women is something we have had for centuries, however, due to divorces and newer ways to have a family, our prestigious and “honorable estate” (Bennett 34) of marriage is weakened. By lumping gay marriage with traditional marriage, Bennett believes that the definition of marriage would be further weakened. If we legally allow this union to be a part of marriage, then how could we stop a less legitimate union, like incest or bigamy? Excluding marriage between a man and a woman is not discriminatory towards homosexuals, but it is protective towards our institution of
Boies supports gay marriage; Stanton rejects it. Boies supports gay marriage by stating that it is a civil right. He also states that marriage is held at a legal standard not a religious standard. Moreover, Boies shows that the Supreme Court has consistently stressed the importance of marriage. Boies makes some strong points about supporting same-sex marriage.
Homosexuals Should Be Able To Marry. Able To Marry 2 Due to the numerous contentious disputes that have arisen in the I do support gay marriage, I do believe that domestic companionship should allowed for gay and lesbians, giving a person the liberty to court and share their love with whomever they so choose, but the blessedness of marriage shouldn’t only persist exclusively between man and woman. Homosexuals should have the same rights to marry the person that they love. "We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone.
Personally, I believe that homosexuals should be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples. As someone said, “marriage is a basic human right. You cannot tell people they cannot fall in love.” While he said this in reference to marriage between races, the same can be said about homosexuals. Who are we to allow some people to get married, and tell others they cannot. As a nation, we have no right to take
Same-sex marriage should be legal. Homosexual marriage should be on the same playing field as heterosexual marriage. Once this feat is mastered then equality will not hold boundaries as it does at the moment. In an interview with Katie Wiley, 37-year-old heterosexual college student and mother, when asked what the benefit of same-sex marriage was, she answered, “The benefit of same-sex marriage is equality. Everyone should be treated the same whether or not they are homosexual or heterosexual.” Pondering her answer makes it clear that not everyone is equal.
Although Sullivan clearly supports gay marriage, his article is an insightful piece that provides a respectful look at various views of this philosophically and emotionally-charged subject, while providing a sound intellectual argument in favor of gay marriage. Sullivan delves into the topic of domestic partnerships. Which he admits are a significant step forward from having no recognition whatsoever. Domestic partnerships are now widely and legally recognized and are gaining social recognition as well. But domestic partnerships primary and major drawback is that the terminology and reality of a domestic partnership does not carry with it the same recognition and social acceptance and legal sanctions that the title of marriage carries.
Geneva Edison Professor Kelley English 101 July 16, 2012 Gay Rights and Civil Rights According to Julian Bond, “How can we deny the rights and privileges of marriage to gay people without violating the principles of justice, equality and respect for individual freedom” (Bond)? This statement has been the topic of discussion in our homes, our public forums, our churches, and our political society for ages. Although in recent ages, it was a topic that many did not want to entertain or discuss. However; this is not the case today, it must be discussed and we must make a decision as to whether gays should or should not marry. Bond also states that all Americans should have the right to marry the person of their choice, regardless
To analyse their ‘post-queer’ basis for the politics of marriage, the authors use the work of Anthony Giddens and Cheshire Calhoun to establish that “same-sex marriage contributes to the trend toward increased reflexivity and expanded autonomy in intimate and sexual life” (138). Meeks and Stein highlight Michael Warner’s article which critiques the normalizing politics of activists and note that when entered into, marriage lends greater dignity to couples, but from the outside, the relationships are less worthy. The authors emphasize that same-sex marriage would not change marriage as much as it would re-define moral boundaries, thus making same-sex relationships
DOMA: Bringing Back Minority Discrimination The Defense of Marriage Act, commonly known as DOMA, is a United States federal government law that defines the term “marriage” as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” The law prevents married couples of the same-sex from obtaining the federal benefits given to married couples of the opposite sex and excuses states from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized in other states. The DOMA law is a bad law because the means of its existence violates amendment rights, promotes minority discrimination, and contradicts the federal government’s promise of equal protection under the law. In 1996 Congress enacted the DOMA law in response to the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling of 1993 in Baehr v. Lewin that same-sex couples might be entitled to marry in the state. This ruling, however, initiated uproar of horror from religious and social conservatives who believed it to be “…an attack on what they refer to as ‘traditional marriage’ or ‘historical marriage,’ that is marriage reserved as a special privilege for opposite-sex couples” (Robinson).
Prop 8 Jennifer Raback Morse argues that “gay rights activists misunderstand the motives of proposition 8 supporters: The proposition is not an expression of hatred toward gays, but a way of restraining an overzealous state Supreme Court which had attempted to redefine marriage.” She views marriage as a “gender-based institution that attaches mothers and fathers to each other and to their children.” (pg. 83) I agree with Morse. She has a good point that the proposition is not an expression of hatred toward gays, but an attempt to redefine marriage, and children should have at least the chance to have a relationship with a mom and dad. I agree with Morse because the proposition was never to show hatred towards homosexuals, but it was to protect marriage. Personally I have gone through arguments with many people about the proposition and what I stood for as a person.