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?
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.
Many people feel that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason.
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.
Question: Should the full faith and credit clause uphold gay marriage nationwide? Answer: Yes “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” These words contained in the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been used to unify our states, and provide legal safety nets for a plethora of important binding legalities. Most recently, The Full Faith and Credit Clause had been watered down by other constitutional measures like the 96 “Defense of Marriage Act” but in reality, denying gay marriage national protection under the clause is counter to its purpose and a historical anomaly. Many like current Justice Scalia argue that traditional choice, based on public policy is a standard of US politics and is constitutional. 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.
Adam & Eve Not Adam & Steve According to ‘dictionary.com’ marriage is ‘the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments and religious ceremonies’, so where do gay couples get the idea from that they should have the right to be legally wed? 7 Homosexuals are very fond of claiming that they are entitled to ‘gay rights’ and are ‘treated unfairly’, and to a certain degree I agree with this; I do believe that they have the right to be with and love whoever they wish without being judged, and that they are treated like a completely different species by homophobes. However, who are they to say that they are treated unfairly when it comes to martial laws? They have the exact same rights as heterosexuals; to marry a member of the opposite sex if they choose, but not the same sex - I can’t marry a member of my own sex even if I wanted to, and you don’t see me or the majority of the worlds’ population kicking up a fuss about that. So basically what the gay community are suggesting is not ‘equal rights’ but ‘extra rights’, which leads me smoothly onto my next point.
1. Religious freedom. Proponents of gay marriage think their view is the latest expression of enlightened humanitarianism. That means people who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of "enlightened" bigotry. A recent Newsday editorial said opponents "will be seen by future generations in much the same light as those who opposed school desegregation."
His rebuttal made a valid point that lead you to question the sanctity of marriage. Pointing out arranged marriages, Keith Olberman, pushed the envelope even further by questioning the love and respect that we have for one another. As Olbermann’s argument came to a close, he “de-fined” marriage, by pulling the religion card right from under Proposition Eight’s nose. He continued to press the meaning of love and the meaning of why we are alive. He questioned the religious aspects of what is considered to be wrong, to mortality for what is
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.