The Australian Human Rights Commission held inquires into areas of discrimination and human rights; recommendations are made to the government for the removal of discrimination and legislation which doesn’t fulfil with UN human rights treaties. Non-legal responses such as Lobbying by NSW Gay and Lesbian rights lobby argues that the legally recognised institution of marriage shouldn’t exclude same sex couples. It’s agenda is to advocate and promote the issue, to an extent this is seen effective as it generally speaks on behalf of same sex couples. Most of the responses to the recognition of same sex relationships are legal responses, changes to the law have recognised same sex relationships as having the same legal standing as heterosexual de facto relationships this is enforced through the Property (Relationships) Act
Moving this research forward as a dissertation project combines my passion for issues of diversity with my interest in the legal system. It presents a unique opportunity to use the resources provided to me to advocate for a population I identify with and will undoubtedly work with someday. Given the gravity and seriousness of the outcomes associated with custody evaluators’ decisions, it is negligent to ignore the issue and not give proper attention and resources to research that can inform such
(167). He also states that marriage is too fragile enough to add the possible burden of gay marriage. He questions what would be the point of legalizing gay marriage while further explaining how marriage is more of an "*acknowledgement and celebration of our most precious and important social act"(Bennett 168). Details about how this could potentially impact young on the shaping of adolescent sexuality, especially in education, are also expained (Bennett 169). Actually his whole case involves on what would this would have an effect on children, concerning gay parenthood.
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.
Pappas’ purpose for writing this article was meant to evoke a visceral reaction to an issue that is plaguing the country. Through her strong and mind-altering statistics, she is able to ignite a feeling of unwavering urgency which causes the readers to take action. Given the information in the article, Pappas speaks out to open-minded audiences who are willing to support gay or lesbian parents. Several people experience the hardships based off of the rude remarks relating to being gay or lesbian. Many individuals believe being gay is wrong and against the bible; especially if parenting comes along with it.
It is the duty of government to enforce laws that will help protect women and children from becoming victims. While there are many ways that the issue of sex trafficking can be addressed, the best way is for government to intervene. Hopefully, through the actions of government people will become more educated on what sex trafficking consists of, the common characteristics of the victims and how the industry
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.
I feel that the bible was a guide, but the guide needs to be updated. People change, cultures change, life changes, the world has changed since it was created. To me, homosexuals have the same right to be happy as heterosexuals. Letting homosexuals marry is the right thing to do, for it is now a new beginning for them. Introduction: The issues of homosexual marriages is very complex, especially who, or who should not be married.
Ever since the first lesbian and gay moment happen at 1970s in Canada, it brings to public attention the basic social need of minority groups has not been provided, the equilibrium between the publicly expressing their affection and protection for homosexual is imbalance. The homosexual feel their need of loving and being love has perceived social marginalization by virtue of their social orientation. Marginalization is experienced in a variety way, including inequality in law, suffering homophobia and social censorship, and being characterized stereotypically. They believe the choice to marry is a fundamental human rights and equality issue. On the other hand, public support for legal recognition of same sex marriage increased markedly in Canada.
There have been many amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 which have given homosexuals more rights in areas such as superannuation, property, intestancy and health as well as new acts that have been brought in such as the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 and the Equal Opportunities Act 1986 which made it illegal to discriminate on terms of homosexuality and that the same rights concerning employement, education, trade unions and registration in organisations. The only right not given to homosexuals is the right to marriage. In 2004 under the Howard government, there was a further amendment to the Marriage Act of 1961 stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, further underlining that the federal governement does not recognise homosexual