In author David E. Newton's book, Same-Sex Marriage: A Reference Handbook, the author points out that while many who oppose same-sex marriage based on the Bible, there are references in the Bible that mention "other types of marriage" (Newton, 2010, 35)
Hence according to this argument, two individuals who love each other should be allowed to marry regardless of their sex. On the other hand, those against same-sex marriages are of the opinion that "same-sex marriage poses a threat to the traditional family" (Newton, 51)
Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized The issue of legalizing same-sex marriages has been the subject of major debate for several years, and was recently brought to the forefront during this past election year. Aside from public support, there are many in the academic world, such as scholars, lawmakers, and commentators who believe that legal status and benefits of marriage should be extended to unions other than traditional marriages (Wardle Pp)
There is actually no logical reason why unions of same-sex couples should not be granted. Throughout the election campaign, President Bush courted conservatives by promising to push for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages, and now that he has been re-elected, it is believed that he will definitely push for the amendment (Munro Pp)
Earlier this year the amendment failed in both the House and the Senate, and opinion polls indicate that Americans are evenly split on the question of adding a marriage amendment to the Constitution, although on November 2, voters in eleven states passed state amendments banning same-sex marriages (Munro Pp). President Bush has stated that he believes "marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other" (Gomes Pp)
David Moats in "Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage details the recent battles in Vermont concerning the legalization of gay marriages. He also provides intimate portraits of many of the people to whom this issue effected, such as Lois and Holly, who had through the years taken in some fifteen foster children and in 1994 adopted one of them, thirteen-year-old Kimberly, who had the time of Moats' interview had just finished her first semester in college (Moats Pp 6)
However, Sullivan also provides historical references to show that same-sex unions are not a modern phenomenon. Sullivan points out that "Same-sex love as Plato's Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love" (Sullivan Pp 3)
Moreover, in Native American society, marriage between two men was commonplace (Sullivan Pp3). Constitutional law professor Andrew Koppelman, says that discrimination against gays is a form of sex discrimination (Caruso Pp)
Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations have been permitted to be separated by race, on the circumstance that the superiority of each group's public facilities was to remain equal. This phrase has been recently used by supporters of same-sex marriage to argue for full marriage rights for same-sex couples, in lieu of civil unions, which is often the suggested alternative (Hirsch, 2004)
According to this dispute, a key victory of the civil-rights movement may have been deficient in certain kinds of procedural legitimacy, but it was nevertheless right, and is today commonly approved, because it is seen as a higher moral legitimacy coming from its justification of the essential principle of equality. Therefore the judicial victories that the same-sex marriage faction seeks would own the same kind of legitimacy as the Brown decision, which nobody would refute is one of the finest accomplishments of American jurisprudence (Holloway, 2009)
The essence of their argument can be found in the equal protection clause (14th amendment) to the U.S. Constitution (Lind, 1995)
5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is legitimate or recognized in California. By limiting the acknowledgment of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition reversed the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married (Newman, 2010)
The California Supreme Court describes marriage as a union completely approved and favored by the community. Where the state has accorded representative sanction to a relationship and provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted that withholding that status necessitates powerful justifications and may not be capriciously denied (Olson, 2010)
The wording of Proposition 8 was exactly the same as Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been nullified by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into instant effect the day after the election (Scotto, 2010)
¶ … same sex marriage has been hotly debated in the media and legislatures throughout the country for the past several years (Corvino, 1999)
Adherents to such religious views will not be accepting of any legislation that hints at any acceptance of such lifestyles. Classic utilitarianism would also argue against the acceptance of same sex marriage (Koppelman, 2001)
The question for such individuals is the pursuit of becoming a good human being and if same sex love or marriage directs one toward that goal than it should be acceptable. The problem with making a decision regarding same sex marriage on an ethical basis is that such decision involves more than just ethics, that it, it involves more than a determination of what is right or wrong (Lewin, 2004)
is purely a civil affair and not religious in any way hence the inductive argument by the writer is void since it ignores the fact that no state requires religious service to authorize a marriage. There are no deities that need to be invoked in order for marriage to take place hence the argument is misplaced by restricting marriage to the traditional meaning on religious grounds (GLAD, 2011)
It is irrational to believe that legalizing same sex marriages will destroy society and the institution of marriage, any more than adhering to the belief that mixed race marriages brought the downfall of society and the institution of marriage. Moreover, statutes defining the legal institution of marriage fail to state justifications for limiting marriage to opposite-sex partners, and although some courts have inferred procreative purpose when interpreting marriage, the intent to procreate is not required for opposite sex marriages, nor does the inability to procreate void a marriage (Hohengarten pp)
Allowing legal unions between same sex couples is not "granting" them permission to have sex, it is allowing them to legally commit to each other and enjoy the social and legal benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. Many corporations such as American Airlines are extending their employee partner benefits to include same sex couples (Lee pp)