(no subject)
Oh forget it. I'll do it now.
Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legalized
According to the 2000 census, 90% of all Americans were married. Only 46% of these couples have children and 43% of them end up in divorce court within the first 15 years of their marriage. The same census concluded that there were 601,209 same-sex partner households, 304,148 gay male couples and 297,062 lesbian couples, in 99.3% of all counties across the United States (World Gay Rights Report NP). If homosexuals are so vast in number, why is the idea of them marring considered so taboo? Banning same-sex marriage is wrong, unconstitutional, and immoral.
The issue of procreation has frequently been brought up against same-sex marriage advocates. “Sterility disqualifies all homosexuals from marring, but not heterosexuals” (Raunch 112). States Johnathan Raunch. Many oppressors use this angle as a road block against same-sex marriage. However, this has never caused a problem for heterosexuals. Sterile couples and post-menopausal women may marry, but they have absolutely no chance of procreation (LaHey and Anderson 112). When a couple decides to apply for a marriage license, they must pay a fee, get a check up, and have a witness present. There is no point in the process in which the couple agrees to have children. No society bans marriages of infertile heterosexuals, nullifies childless marriages, or requires contracts that mandate children. It would be a sad day should a Mr. and Mrs. Smith receive a letter from the government stating “Your marriage of 55 years is now null and void because your have passed child bearing age and reared no offspring. Sorry for the inconvenience.” In the Baehr Vs. Hawaii case, Judge Kevin Chang determined “Children of gay parents develop in a normal fashion” (LaHey and Anderson 52). There have been no recorded incidents of children of gay parents growing to become menaces to society or to themselves.
In the first amendment, it is decreed that the US follow the rules of separation of church and state. Numerous religious organizations have tried to overturn this, mostly Christians. In the US, Southern Baptists oppose gays the most, closely followed by Catholics, Jews, and Muslims (Messerli NP). Only 85% of the US is Christian, yet they try to recruit more people than any other religion and force their beliefs on others. Many Christians clothe themselves in a cloth of “we’re right, we’re better.” They believe it’s ok to hate as long as they preach love. As Alveda King, an activist against equal rights, says, “God hates racism, and got hates homosexuality” (World Gay Rights Report NP).
Many Christians use the “pick and choose” method picking and choosing which laws of their religion to uphold. “The Holiness code explicitly band homosexual acts, but it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kind of seeds in the same field, wearing garments of two different kind of yarn, tattoos, adultery, and intercourse with a woman during her menstrual cycle,” Says Peter Gomes, a religion teacher from Boston. He goes on to say, “Those who speak for the religious right don’t speak for all US Christians. The Bible is not theirs alone to interpret. The same Bible that advocates of slavery used to protect their wicked self-interest in the Bible that inspired slaves to revolt and their liberators to take action.” What many of them don’t realize is that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, and their way may not be another person’s way. “Up until the 12th century, Christian moral theology treated homosexuality as, at worst, comparable to heterosexual fornication, but more often remained silent on the issue,” quotes John Boswell, another religion teacher (Marcus 135-141).
Marriage is a basic fundamental that is necessary for the well-being of society. “From society’s point of view and unattached person is an accident waiting to happen,” Johnathan Raunch begins. “An unmarried man between the ages of 24 and 35 is 3 times as likely to kill and rape as a married man of the same age” (Raunch 20-22). In the United States, the decriminalization of homosexual existence began in 1961 and the law banning sodomy was struck down in 2003 (LaHey and Anderson 47). But the struggle is very far from over. Now, four states have “Romeo and Juliet” laws, excusing heterosexuals for certain transgressions, but giving harsh punishment to homosexuals (World Gay Right Report NP).
Another roadblock for same-sex marriage advocates is the argument of civil unions. In 1989, Denmark enacted Civil Partnerships, granting nearly all rights to gay couples (Messerli NP). Amsterdam is the only country that grants full right to all gay couples. The US has attempted to mimic this by enacting Civil Unions and Registered Domestic Partnerships (RDP). This is still insufficient protection. An RDP is not considered a form a marriage by governments, the couple cannot jointly adopt, and females cannot use reproductive technologies (LaHey an Anderson 31). Civil Unions are a step in the right direction, but they’re still “a separate, but equal institution.”
For the last 40 years, the struggle for equal rights has been fought throughout the United States. Many organizations have been on the front line of the fight lobbying for the most basic of rights, like privacy and marriage. Likewise, numerous organizations have taken up fighting against equal rights for homosexuals for flawed an unjustifiable reasons, most of which are rotted to fear and prejudice. Julie Goodridge of Massachusetts relates, “Hillary and I have been together for 16 years and have no legal relationship together, yet a man and woman can meet in a bar on Friday night and get married the next day. That’s insane.” (LaHey and Anderson 361). And rightfully so, she and her partner have shared property, bills, hard times, laughs, tears, fights, reconciliation, and a daughter of the better half of two decades. However, if one of them was to die tomorrow, the surviving partner and the child could lose everything due to insufficient protections under law. An anonymous heterosexual couple, on the other hand, can marry without any prior commitments to each other and receive every legal protection possible in the country. What sense does this make? As Senator Barney Frank addressed the senate regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA), “How does the fact that two men live together and love each other in Hawaii hurt your marriage in Florida or Georgia? It doesn’t, it threatens the institution. This baffles me. Institutions do not marriage, people marry” (Marcus 104). The openly gay politician was both opposed and backed by members of the senate.
In the case of Baehr Vs The State of Hawaii, which involved several couples who were denied marriage licenses, Judge Kevin Change ruled, “The freedom to marry has long since been recognized as one of the vital, personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” (LaHey and Anderson 16-17). Furthermore, he ruled that, “unless the state could find a compelling reason for denying the couples a marriage license, the exclusion would be found to be unconstitutional” (LaHey 57).
Banning Same-Sex Marriage is wrong, unconstitutional, and immoral. There is no compelling reason to ban it, as Judge Change ruled, and all it does is hurt homosexuals that live together, with or without children. Is marriage only meant for procreation and genital coition? If a person is not of a certain religion, why should her of she be a victim to its mandates? Must homosexuals have “their own marriage” which would only segregate them further from their heterosexual neighbors? Homosexual relationships are viewed to be a “copy of the real thing.” They’re viewed as not worthy to be recognized in matrimony. As Johnathan Raunch says, “If homosexuals are only capable of a lesser kind of love, why not let them make the most of it?”
Please respond (positive and negative comments welcome.) Please be candid.
Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legalized
According to the 2000 census, 90% of all Americans were married. Only 46% of these couples have children and 43% of them end up in divorce court within the first 15 years of their marriage. The same census concluded that there were 601,209 same-sex partner households, 304,148 gay male couples and 297,062 lesbian couples, in 99.3% of all counties across the United States (World Gay Rights Report NP). If homosexuals are so vast in number, why is the idea of them marring considered so taboo? Banning same-sex marriage is wrong, unconstitutional, and immoral.
The issue of procreation has frequently been brought up against same-sex marriage advocates. “Sterility disqualifies all homosexuals from marring, but not heterosexuals” (Raunch 112). States Johnathan Raunch. Many oppressors use this angle as a road block against same-sex marriage. However, this has never caused a problem for heterosexuals. Sterile couples and post-menopausal women may marry, but they have absolutely no chance of procreation (LaHey and Anderson 112). When a couple decides to apply for a marriage license, they must pay a fee, get a check up, and have a witness present. There is no point in the process in which the couple agrees to have children. No society bans marriages of infertile heterosexuals, nullifies childless marriages, or requires contracts that mandate children. It would be a sad day should a Mr. and Mrs. Smith receive a letter from the government stating “Your marriage of 55 years is now null and void because your have passed child bearing age and reared no offspring. Sorry for the inconvenience.” In the Baehr Vs. Hawaii case, Judge Kevin Chang determined “Children of gay parents develop in a normal fashion” (LaHey and Anderson 52). There have been no recorded incidents of children of gay parents growing to become menaces to society or to themselves.
In the first amendment, it is decreed that the US follow the rules of separation of church and state. Numerous religious organizations have tried to overturn this, mostly Christians. In the US, Southern Baptists oppose gays the most, closely followed by Catholics, Jews, and Muslims (Messerli NP). Only 85% of the US is Christian, yet they try to recruit more people than any other religion and force their beliefs on others. Many Christians clothe themselves in a cloth of “we’re right, we’re better.” They believe it’s ok to hate as long as they preach love. As Alveda King, an activist against equal rights, says, “God hates racism, and got hates homosexuality” (World Gay Rights Report NP).
Many Christians use the “pick and choose” method picking and choosing which laws of their religion to uphold. “The Holiness code explicitly band homosexual acts, but it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kind of seeds in the same field, wearing garments of two different kind of yarn, tattoos, adultery, and intercourse with a woman during her menstrual cycle,” Says Peter Gomes, a religion teacher from Boston. He goes on to say, “Those who speak for the religious right don’t speak for all US Christians. The Bible is not theirs alone to interpret. The same Bible that advocates of slavery used to protect their wicked self-interest in the Bible that inspired slaves to revolt and their liberators to take action.” What many of them don’t realize is that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, and their way may not be another person’s way. “Up until the 12th century, Christian moral theology treated homosexuality as, at worst, comparable to heterosexual fornication, but more often remained silent on the issue,” quotes John Boswell, another religion teacher (Marcus 135-141).
Marriage is a basic fundamental that is necessary for the well-being of society. “From society’s point of view and unattached person is an accident waiting to happen,” Johnathan Raunch begins. “An unmarried man between the ages of 24 and 35 is 3 times as likely to kill and rape as a married man of the same age” (Raunch 20-22). In the United States, the decriminalization of homosexual existence began in 1961 and the law banning sodomy was struck down in 2003 (LaHey and Anderson 47). But the struggle is very far from over. Now, four states have “Romeo and Juliet” laws, excusing heterosexuals for certain transgressions, but giving harsh punishment to homosexuals (World Gay Right Report NP).
Another roadblock for same-sex marriage advocates is the argument of civil unions. In 1989, Denmark enacted Civil Partnerships, granting nearly all rights to gay couples (Messerli NP). Amsterdam is the only country that grants full right to all gay couples. The US has attempted to mimic this by enacting Civil Unions and Registered Domestic Partnerships (RDP). This is still insufficient protection. An RDP is not considered a form a marriage by governments, the couple cannot jointly adopt, and females cannot use reproductive technologies (LaHey an Anderson 31). Civil Unions are a step in the right direction, but they’re still “a separate, but equal institution.”
For the last 40 years, the struggle for equal rights has been fought throughout the United States. Many organizations have been on the front line of the fight lobbying for the most basic of rights, like privacy and marriage. Likewise, numerous organizations have taken up fighting against equal rights for homosexuals for flawed an unjustifiable reasons, most of which are rotted to fear and prejudice. Julie Goodridge of Massachusetts relates, “Hillary and I have been together for 16 years and have no legal relationship together, yet a man and woman can meet in a bar on Friday night and get married the next day. That’s insane.” (LaHey and Anderson 361). And rightfully so, she and her partner have shared property, bills, hard times, laughs, tears, fights, reconciliation, and a daughter of the better half of two decades. However, if one of them was to die tomorrow, the surviving partner and the child could lose everything due to insufficient protections under law. An anonymous heterosexual couple, on the other hand, can marry without any prior commitments to each other and receive every legal protection possible in the country. What sense does this make? As Senator Barney Frank addressed the senate regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA), “How does the fact that two men live together and love each other in Hawaii hurt your marriage in Florida or Georgia? It doesn’t, it threatens the institution. This baffles me. Institutions do not marriage, people marry” (Marcus 104). The openly gay politician was both opposed and backed by members of the senate.
In the case of Baehr Vs The State of Hawaii, which involved several couples who were denied marriage licenses, Judge Kevin Change ruled, “The freedom to marry has long since been recognized as one of the vital, personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” (LaHey and Anderson 16-17). Furthermore, he ruled that, “unless the state could find a compelling reason for denying the couples a marriage license, the exclusion would be found to be unconstitutional” (LaHey 57).
Banning Same-Sex Marriage is wrong, unconstitutional, and immoral. There is no compelling reason to ban it, as Judge Change ruled, and all it does is hurt homosexuals that live together, with or without children. Is marriage only meant for procreation and genital coition? If a person is not of a certain religion, why should her of she be a victim to its mandates? Must homosexuals have “their own marriage” which would only segregate them further from their heterosexual neighbors? Homosexual relationships are viewed to be a “copy of the real thing.” They’re viewed as not worthy to be recognized in matrimony. As Johnathan Raunch says, “If homosexuals are only capable of a lesser kind of love, why not let them make the most of it?”
Please respond (positive and negative comments welcome.) Please be candid.