Argumentative Essay On Same Sex Marriage

In this article, political implications are given emphasis. To begin with, the same-sex marriages lead to a democratic disrespect. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the point as he opposed the idea in the Supreme Court (Powell, 2015). Concerning the precedent round of litigation Hawaii, Rosenberg and Klarman’s source emphasis has been a significant negative legislative response in Congress and state capitols (Powell, 2015). Despite that, there were other bright electoral consequences as well. These electoral consequences were very but not entirely

The idea of the legalization of same-sex marriage has always been frowned upon and always had Canada conflicted in the past, but now the vast majority of Canada has started to notice changes regarding this matter. Since the shift towards legalizing same-sex marriage, Canada’s perspective has drastically changed and has ensured that everyone, despite their sexual orientation or preference, receives the same benefits when it comes to marriage.

This essay will be critically analyzing the social policy of same sex marriage using four Australian newspaper articles to demonstrate and examine how inequality through diversity and difference are present and experienced in the public domain. The essay will draw upon What ideological values and assumptions are present in both the newspaper articles and social policy?, What are the social justice concerns in relation to the current same sex policy?, concluding with a reflective component exploring where in relation to the social policy issue I am as a developing social worker.

In this article Michael Koziol discusses the conflict of the church when it comes to enacting legal protections for the LGBTI+ community. It particularly focuses the fact that both major political parties carry a fear of getting on the wrong side of church lobby groups and the effect that this has had the development, or lack there of, of the rights of the LGBTI+ community. He directly references times where this has been an issue for this community like the fact that the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act exempts private schools from the section on homosexuality and when this issue was brought to parliament by Alex Greenwich it had to be shelved due to the lack of support from the coalition.

In her opinion piece "Priority is to protect marriage", Margaret Court authoritatively and arrogantly argues that Australia is in a moral decline which must not be furthered by legalising gay marriage. Court's piece opens with an attack on Australia as a whole, claiming that it is in "steep moral decline" and people are "making excuses for a sliding lifestyle". This evokes feelings of guilt in the reader, appealing to their sense of morality and encouraging them to reflect on their own lives. Court furthers this idea in saying that Australia has a "moral fabric" that should be retained, again appealing to the reader's conscience. Court accuses Australian society as being the one "that takes the easy way out" in terms of morality, this use of colloquial language extending her appeal to audiences ranging from young adults upwards.

Among innumerable reasons why marriage equality should be legalized in Australia, a prominent one is that restricting the option to marry any citizen is discriminatory and unconstitutional. This sort of treatment not only deprives every-day people of their dignity, creating a second class of citizens, but also suggests that LGBTI+ people are somehow unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society. A lack of opportunity to formalize same-sex relations implies that these relationships aren 't of equal standard, exacerbating unjust prejudice and intolerance. This impression is promoted through the lack of financial, medical and social rights associated with marriage to individuals in a civil union, the supposed 'adequate equivalent ' for marriage. Although the legalisation of marriage equality would have no impact on non-LGBTI+ communities,

Canada has had a long history of multiculturalism, having been the first country to formally declare it a policy in 1971 (Reidel 2009). Like what Pierik (2014) and other scholars have recommended Canada maintains neutrality by remaining committed to individual freedoms and human rights as interpreted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Reidel 2009). The opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage provides a fascinating example of how Canada’s government manages both neutrality and multiculturalism. Those opposing same-sex marriage made arguments based on cultural and religious beliefs and asked that Canada’s government favor their interpretation (Reidel 2009). They argued that extending the right to marry same same-sex couples would violate their beliefs and lead to a deterioration of society (Reidel 2009). However, in this case, the demands for accommodation made by various religious and cultural groups were

Over the course of 2003 and 2004 two cases concerning same sex rights appeared before the Canadian and American supreme courts. The Supreme Court of the United States heard the case of Lawrence et al. v. Texas, which dealt with the constitutionality of sodomy laws prohibiting male on male sodomy. The Canadian Supreme Court also dealt with a case related to same-sex rights, but in a very different setting. The case before the Canadian Supreme Court was Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, a reference case dealing with the constitutionality of a proposed federal law legalizing same-sex marriage. Although both cases ended in what can be considered a “victory” for same-sex rights, they also reveal deep differences between the ways the two countries

Futurist John Naisbitt, author of Megatrends, has studied the change in the public’s perspective on gay marriage. Naisbitt asserts: “In just my lifetime, we have gone from a taboo to even talk about homosexuality, to the sanction by governments of homosexual marriage. Few such large social considerations have ever before been turned over in such a short time” (Naisbitt).

​Canada is often seen as a leader in the gay rights movement and it has a long history of providing rights to those that identify as homosexual (BC Teachers’ Federation, 2016; Cotler, 2015). As far back as 1969, Prime Minister Trudeau passed Bill C-150 which amended the Criminal Code to decriminalize “gross indecency” and “buggery”; if committed between two consenting adults if they are over 21 (BC Teachers’ Federation, 2016). The Code was further amended to drop the age of consent for anal sex from 18 and 14 for other sexual activity and it was recognized that a higher age for consent of anal sex was unconstitutional (BC Teachers’ Federation, 2016). Since then there have been many changes to the political and social system in Canada to be able to improve the rights not only individuals whom are part of the LGBTQ community, but also for those whom are in same sex relationships (BC Teachers’ Federation, 2016). As of 2005, same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada; however, there is still debate of whether or not same-sex legalization has legitimized same-sex partnerships within society (Colter, 2015). Many cases that have come before the court regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriages have argued that the actions of society are a direct violation of people’s s.15 rights in the Constitution; which allows for every person to be treated equally and bear the freedom of religion (Supreme Court Judgements, 2004). It will be argued that Canada has created equal rights for

In the last decade, Canadian courts have increasingly recognized gay marriages. This recognition has been long overdue as the Canadian gay community was routinely oppressed prior to this string of court rulings. This was a definite victory for Canadian democracy, seeing that a minority group has had its rights protected. Paul Martin, after having presented the Civil Marriage Act, described it "as a natural and necessary evolution of minority-rights protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." (Den Tant, 2005) However, there are certain inconsistencies with this seemingly pluralistic approach that have become more apparent in recent years. Canadian democracy may be defined as "majority rule, minority rights," and with

There are many controversies surrounding today's world, such as abortion, animal testing, and social reform issues. It seems that no one can come to a common agreement on the legitimacy of these topics. Personal characteristics, such as upbringing, culture, religion and ethnicity, all play a role in determining one's feelings on a given controversial issue. However, one of the most protested and discussed issues in current political debate is same-sex marriage. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, only hard pressed arguments expressing speculation regarding supposed outcomes, benefits and possible tribulations that would come along with the endorsement of gay marriage. Such ideas are shown

One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and

Australians are currently voting on legalizing gay marriage by using a postal vote; a voluntary survey compared to a compulsory electoral vote. The government can rule on the outcome and ignore the results of the survey all together (Westcott). Emily angrily feels the law will not be passed because, “The government did a postal vote on purpose; they are very homophobic.” After, Renee explained, “There are a lot of riots over gay marriage. The situation is very sad.” Their responses about same sex marriage gave me the realization of how lucky I am to live in a place that now accepts, in a legal sense, any form of love between two people. They taught me how serious of an issue gay marriage is in Australia.

As the society changing, the history of marriage also changes. Marriage is legally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship, but do those two partners always have to be a man and a woman? Most people believe that homosexuals should be granted equal rights as heterosexual couples. Being as an important social issue, same-sex marriage has become a hot topic of public debates in the recent years. For over the past decade, public support for the same-sex marriage has quickly risen. The United States is one of over twenty countries that allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. I believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized in all countries for several reasons, such as being an issue of equal rights, separation of church and state, no negative effect on the heterosexual communities, increasing in child adoption, and decreasing divorce and suicide rates.