Should Same Sex Marriages Be Legal?

In recent years, the debate over same-sex marriage has grown into a nationwide controversy, reverberating into the halls of congress, at the white house, in dozens of state and legislature and courtrooms, and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at both the national and state levels. As the debate rages on, the American religious community remains deeply divided over the issue, and over the morality of homosexuality. The debate has grown from an issue that occasionally arose in a few states to a national and even worldwide controversy.

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

For the past 3 decades the views surrounding marriage has undergone a great deal of change (Lennox, 2015, p. 1101). This shift is due to the continual discussion of gay marriage. The interplay of religion and politics has led for much controversy. In the United States, the use of Christian and Jewish biblical texts are the main sources drawn upon for opposition, but have also been used as a supportive means of equality. Beyond the religious there are also psychological and physical health arguments, as well as civil rights arguments. Same sex marriage is examined through different paradigms, thus giving rise to religious, political/legal, and religious arguments surrounding the legalization of this institution for gay and lesbian couples.

A metamorphosis in how the American judicial system perceives same-sex marriage, has developed over the past forty years. In October, 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

The legalization of gay marriage has been a controversial issue in many state courts since the mid 1970s. Gay marriage scares many people because it strays from the norms of heterosexual relationships. Traditional American ideals have become a part of culture and society that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, or race, or gender, expect to have as a basic human rights. Several times in history these have been identified as inalienable rights. One of the expected rights of many American citizens is the right to choose who they love, who they marry, and how they live their day to day life. When heterosexual Americans were introduced to the idea of same sex marriage, they became afraid that it would “taint the minds of the young members of the community,” since homosexualty was and still is frowned upon in the community. Thus, the homosexual community’s opportunity to freely choose how to live their life is taken

In the past few decades, the question of allowing for same-sex marriage is a recurring topic of controversy. In the houses of same-sex couples, the need for equal rights is of great importance. Currently, many states ban the marriage of same-sex couples and do not view a marriage between same-sex couples as an official marriage. These states quote the Constitutional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, with this definition, the marriage of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is unconstitutional. As of the issue date of this article, the Supreme Court had not made a national decision on same-sex marriage and the benefits entitled to that marriage. This CQ Researcher journal focuses on the topic of

Another such recent test to the separation of church and state was President Bush’s public definition of marriage and attack on homosexual relationships. Under the code of unethical, Mr. Bush attempted to ban the union of two same sex members from joining as married. Although no Biblical scripture has been presented as support for the proposed constitutional amendment, the disagreement with same sex marriage can primarily be found in the religious fields or in area’s traditionally known as religiously dominant areas. Marriage is both an emotional as well as contractual union of individuals. To prevent the union should require the backing of evidence that appeals to more than the fickle nature of the public.

The institutional barriers to legally recognizing same-sex marriage engender a sense of injustice and an unethical violation of a Universal Human Right. While author Card does identify these fallacies and states that the law should not determine which adult unions are legitimate, she posits an unsettling alternative. Suggesting that same-sex marriage should not have been a political issue and proposing the abolition of marriage denies the LGBT community social recognition and an equal opportunity to choose.

The history of same-sex marriage in the United States dates back to the early 1970s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights. In 1971 the case Baker v. Nelson ruled that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples did not violate the U.S. Constitution. But as the subject of same sex marriage became increasingly prominent in the U.S., in 1993, the case Baehr v. Lewin suggested that such prohibition might be unconstitutional. The United States is the land of the free and freedom means equality, but for decades marriage was a denied right for the LGBTQ community. The nation’s “constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need no wait legislative action before asserting a fundamental right” (Obergefell v. Hodges 533), therefore under the fourteenth amendment which protects fundamental liberties “states [had] to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed out of State” (Obergefell v. Hodges 533). The United States was founded on the term “men,” the men that abhors the idea of femininity.

The political aspects of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to federal and government recognized marriages are a very complex issue. There are basically two sides to the political argument of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. On one side are the liberals who feel that marriage is a civil right that should be denied based on the basis of a person's sexual orientation. On the other side you have conservatives who feel that marriage is an institution in which should only constitute one man and one woman. In this report we are going to examine how the issue of same-sex marriages are affecting our current political environment, how politics is affecting the movement for

Same sex- marriage is still the topic of many peoples conversation across the country. Citizens, divided by politic party, are very passionate about how they feel about it. The president didn’t approve of it at first, but now he finally accepts same- sex marriage, the Judicial System uses its power to dictate to the States, forcing them to accept same- sex marriage. Both houses of Congress continue to debate what marriage means.

As we know, same-sex marriage has been discussed and argued for a long time. Within the controversial topic of gay rights, there’s no area more controversial than same-sex marriage. And all of us ask ourselves if same-sex marriage should be legal or not. But the fact is that we have to start thinking about it as a moral and religious topic. The government shouldn’t legalize the same-sex marriage because the

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

Often cited by Catholics is an interpretation of marriage as being “a promise made to God” and “a holy sacrament” that is only to be shared between one man and one woman. Other biblical interpretations suggest that a capital sin is committed by those in homosexual relationships and therefore must be strictly forbidden to all. However, marriage in itself is a secular institution, meaning that it is not subject to the ideals of any religion. Furthermore, any man and woman can get married at this time regardless of their religion. While same-sex marriages may not be welcome inside the Catholic Church, denying them outside of the Catholic Church is a discriminatory practice, allowed to occur in the name of religious preservation.

According to Genesis chapter 1, the definition of marriage is the intimate union and equal partnership of a man and a woman. “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:27-28) Same-sex marriage activists want to define marriage simply as a private relationship between two loving, committed parties; they want the same level of recognition that heterosexuals obtain. The main purpose of marriage is procreation, which is impossible to maintain with same sex couples. That’s why marriage shouldn’t be extended to include homosexuals. Dana Mack wrote on the Wall Street Journal, “Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification.” (Mack, 2010)