Gay Rights: Homosexuals Deserve the same Rights as Heterosexuals

The United States of America was founded as a secular sanctuary for ideals like freedom, equality, and tolerance – few will argue against that. Over its history American culture has radically evolved as it strived to meet the ideals its nation was based upon, making changes like ending slavery and providing legal equality for women and minorities, changes that at the time seemed absurd but today are unquestionable merits that define what an “American” is. The quest to reach the ultimate utopian society continues today as true Americans fight the evils of ignorance, stubborn bigotry and the fear to change that still manifest themselves in a large portion of U.S. citizens, preventing this nation from moving forward. One of the outstanding minorities still left to be granted the ideals of freedom, equality, and tolerance are homosexuals trying to obtain the right to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, regardless of gender. Same-sex marriages should be recognized in the eyes of the U.S. government in accordance with its responsibility to provide all American citizens equal freedoms.

In the past, there has been proposed amendments, such as the Federal Marriage Amendment, to ensure that marriage is between one man and one woman. However, the amendment was viewed as a way to discriminate same-sex couples and prevent them from getting married. On June 26 of this year, same-sex marriage became legal nationwide prohibiting all states from not allowing same-sex couples to get married. There has been various debates on amending the Constitution to state the rights of marriage within same-sex couples. The Constitution currently does not say anything about morality of marriage, but many people feel that a same-sex marriage amendment should be added to ensure the rights of married homosexuals (huelskamp.house.gov, Marriage Protection

The definition of marriage has changed over time. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the United States defined marriage as a union between a consenting man and woman, of non-African decent (Stahlberg, 2008, p. 443). This, however, changed after the civil war. In 1868 two consenting adults of opposite gender could marry someone of the same race, but this was also restructured in 1967 to allow marriage of all consenting adults of opposite genders regardless of race (Stahlberg, 2008, p. 443). Today, the law looks very different. Recently, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marriage (gay marriage, 2015).

The Constitution of the United States does not define what marriage is, thus supporters of this act believe that each state should have the choice whether to recognize marriage between same-sex couples. Furthermore, in the tenth amendment it states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved

Marriage is universally understood to be the legal union between a man and a woman. This acknowledgement, however, has recently generated dispute and controversy in certain individuals, primarily homosexuals and supporters of homosexual marriages. This opposition, due to this mainstream view, exists because certain states such as Minnesota deny same-sex marriages.

The United States Constitution protects certain liberties in the Bill of Rights and rights deemed “fundamental” that are “traditionally protected by our society.” (Michael H. v. Gerald D.). The liberty at issue in this case is the right to marry, which has been deemed fundamental by this Court in Loving v. Virginia, where we stated that “[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” (Loving v. Virginia). The petitioners in the case at bar seek that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages be equal to traditional, opposite-sex couples.

It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation’s multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But with the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals. One’s sexuality is not a preference, it is immutable, unchangeable, and the Constitution protects us all against prejudices and discrimination based on immutable differences. Not only is not allowing same-sex couples to marry discriminatory, it also makes gays second class citizens. When we as a nation refuse to accord the same marital status to gays and lesbians, we discourage same-sex couples from forming the same relationships we encourage for others, and we are essentially telling gays, those of who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent and less valued. By not legalizing same-sex marriages the US demeans their relationships and demeans gays as individuals. Same-sex marriages must be legalized.

Although I do believe that marriage should stay between a man and a woman, it is hard to defend every religious persons beliefs and the discombobulated upbringing of children without changing the law. In reality gays/lesbians feel as if they should be treated equally and there is nothing we as people can fight enough to change

In addition to the hostility and embarrassment that homosexuals face every day, they also encounter political and legal policies and practices that prevent them from living a normal life like heterosexual people. For example, there are laws that prevent people of the same gender to be legally married to each other such as proposition eight in California. Gay people just want the right to be able to be happy with a significant other, make a family, and show their loyalty in each other through marriage. There is no difference whether that significant other is of the same gender or opposite, at the end of the day they just want that chance of happiness just like everyone else. Unfortunately, there are laws in places that prevent that from becoming true. Not allowing homosexuals to marry can affect many people’s lives and can even be detrimental to one’s health. For example in the article “The Case of Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson: Ableism,

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Or, at least, that is how The Defense of Marriage Act defines it. The act, passed in 1996, attempted to offer closure to Americans who wondered how to define marriage in the United States. American advocates for gay rights date back to the early 20th century, but true advancements in equality haven’t been made until the past ten years. Opponents of the act have argued that the decision breeds inequality and discrimination in a country that was founded to avoid the two. The opponents undoubtedly rejoiced on June 26, 2013 as the Supreme Court ruled that the wording used in section three of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. Section three of the act stated that marriage was “between one man and one woman” (Gaynor and Blesset, 2). The Defense of Marriage Act is under constant scrutiny and may be completely repealed due to increased awareness of human rights among Americans, a drastic change in American public opinion, and politicians facing loss of constituent support if they do not support gay rights and the associated legislation.

Marriage, by definition, is the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. In today’s society however, things are changing. People of all genders are forming bonds with one another, and homosexuals are vying for the right to have their love established as marriage as well. Should men and men, and women and women, be allowed the right of marriage just like heterosexual couples in America? Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett have opposing opinions on this subject, however are more alike in opinion than they know. Their articles tell different stories, with the same general underlying tone.

Gay rights are a civil rights issue although unrecognized on a par with women or Africans. As the definition of civil rights states “those positive rights, whether political, social or economic, conferred by the government on individuals or groups that had previously been denied them” (Yalof, 108). Homosexuals have been discriminated against historically, by both religious and political groups. There have been cases where they have been discriminated at work, clergy, and the military.

While some states have began to embrace the civil rights of all American people and allowing both hetero- and homo-sexual couples to marry, some states have done quite the opposite and banned same sex marriages and unions. Not all Americans feel so strongly about legalizing same sex marriage. Those against same sex marriage believe marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman. However, that has not always been true, as explained in the beginning of this paper, the ancient people commonly wed the same gender and them and also had same sex sexual relations (ProCon.org). In fact in the first century Nero the Emperor of Rome married at least two of his lovers who were men (Chastain 19.) It was not until Christianity became a wide spread religion that sodomy and homosexuality became immoral. Those who oppose the legalization of gay marriage also believe that same sex marriage will threaten the institution of marriage. Marriages since 2011 have been at a new low, with only 52 percent of adults being married (Yen). However gays are fighting for the right to marry who they love, while heterosexual couples take that for granted. Divorce rates are currently lingering around 40-50% that is without gays being able to be married in many states. By allow homosexuals to marry their significant others, it will allow for a stronger bond and maybe bring back life into the deteriorating world of marriage. In states that do allow for same sex marriages, their divorce rates are

take a stance on homosexuality, these individuals do have certain liberties, just as all persons have liberties unless a legitimate state interest can be found to say otherwise. The Court’s broad sense of “liberty” has opened the door for the inclusion of same-sex marriage to be included in one’s personal liberties. The denials of the benefits that come with marriage have other impacts in the life of the person as they may face tougher medical, economical and familial situations. Having the right to visit an ailing partner in the hospital, buying property and filing taxes together, and decisions to raise children and have legal equal access over those children are just some of the burdens that unmarried same-sex couples face. The only time a liberty is allowed to be taken away from an individual is if there exists a legitimate state interest. There is no rational state interest in same-sex marriage. The protection of family values would

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.