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.
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.
The editor defends their assumption that, Republicans only view marriage as “a traditional male-female couple,” based on a brief they filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In Summary, the brief states that the Defense of Marriage Act’s goals are to “provide consistency of federal funds and encourage relationships.” The brief also states that Congress views marriage as a traditional male-female couple. The editor supports their claim by pointing out that since 2010; every court that has been involved in hearings over the Defense of Marriage Act has found it unconstitutional. The editor also stated a federal judge in New York recently found the Act unconstitutional based on federal estate tax discrimination. We believe the editor is directing their editorial toward an audience that includes same sex-spouses and people that either support or do not support the Defense of Marriage 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.
Congress knows this is a hot button issue with many Americans and the arguments against it just can’t hold up. Nothing bad can come out of gay marriage. I saw a man protesting on the news holding a picket sign which read, “What would happen if gay marriage were legalized?!? !......Gay people would get married.” I thought his sign was perfect. Why are we so up in arms over this?
A recent Newsday editorial said opponents "will be seen by future generations in much the same light as those who opposed school desegregation." Devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews and, ironically, the 70% of African-Americans who oppose gay marriage have become the new Ku Klux Klan? Proponents of gay marriage insist that a "religious exemption" will be sufficient to protect the rights of faith-based traditionalists. Maybe, maybe not. (Fallacy: Proof surrogate, hyperbole.)
Charmaine English 101 Professor Clara Blenis 12 February 2015 “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” Pg. 82 Question#1 This essay challenges my assumptions on about conservative perspectives on marriage equality by fighting for it first off. I was so shocked to read the writers arguments about why banding same-sex marriages goes against everything America stands for. Conservatives are quick to say they have nothing wrong with same-sex couples. Then turn around a make prop 8 that tells them they are not worthy of the same rights they have.
Those who are the minority or the outcast then tend to hide behind a shadow, afraid to show who they really are, and stand up for what they believe in. In Macklemore’s music video “same love”, he uses significant objects of history and current day to create juxtapositions in civil rights, and religion. These juxtapositions beg the question; why does Macklemore use these strong figures like Martin Luther King, and the bible? Why not use someone like Malcolm X or Tupac? Macklemore starts his argument relating gay rights to the civil rights at (2:28) where he purposefully puts clips of a significant black women in history, the American flag flowing in the wind, a burning cross, a clip from war, and a young African American holding a sign stating “we believe in the supreme court”.
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
This brings up questions and arguments of why they oppose gay marriage. Religion plays a part in this argument; their definition of marriage is between a man and woman as stated in the bible, specifically the book of Genesis (“Should Gary Marriage” 2). In response to their accusation, while from a religious viewpoint marriage is defined between a man and women, marriage is ultimately a legal binding by law. People can be married in a church that may symbolize their marriage, but until they receive a legal documentation of their marriage license they are not considered married. Marriage is also not a religious right in the United States; it is a civil right as stated in the Constitution under the Federal Marriage Amendment (Longley 1).