Sullivan Arguments Outweigh Kurtz

One of the author’s main reasons to support his view is that legalization of gay marriage can combat the promiscuous dating and hook-up culture we see so much of in today’s society. By legalizing gay marriage, people who identify as homosexual can actually strive for a monogamous marriage and a healthy family. Sullivan also argues that legalizing gay marriage places more responsibilities on gay individuals, as the spousal title can contribute to more gay people being held to the same standards as straight people, whether it is in culture or in the legal system. Legalization of marriage can

Andrew Sullivan is the author of an article “Why Gay Marriage is Good for Straight America.” He is an experienced publicist, and he is homosexual. Sullivan argues that every person has the right to get married disregarding his or her orientation. Richard Rodriguez who is also a famous publicist composed “Family Values.” Like Sullivan, he is homosexual and he discusses it in his work. Rodriguez and Sullivan share many viewpoints related to homosexuality, but they disagree about the appropriateness of homosexual marriage – Sullivan is for it, and Rodriguez views it as an imitation of heterosexuality.

I join the opinion of the court in favor of Hodges and offer these accompanying thoughts. In order to determine if the state is required under the Fourteenth Amendment to license a marriage of same sex, we must establish a foundation in regards to marriage and its entitlements. The court argues that marriage “is not a fundamental right,” and with this conclusion, the state is not be required to legally recognize any marriage it does not see fit. Fundamental rights are due strict scrutiny, but issues of liberty interest only require rational basis. There is a significant difference between the two approaches with ‘rational basis’ only requiring that the law be related to a government interest. “Rational basis” review is generally used in cases where fundamental rights are of issue and is thus fitting for this case under these assumptions.” The constitution does not specifically list marriage as a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights or any of its additional amendments and thus leaves ample room for interpretation of is significance. The defense attempts to use the Fourteenth amendment in their defense as it asserts,

Same-sex couples should have access to the same marriage benefits as heterosexual couples. Prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional discrimination.

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.

I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, and ever since the recognition of marriage in all cultures, it has been that way. A lot of people have been trying to look at it as a right of the people protected under the Constitution. I say that it is being examined completely wrong. Marriage is, by my definition, the union of a man and woman recognized by the state. I do not think it is the union of two people. Regardless of what I believe, I do not think it was legally right for the Court to require all of the states to recognize gay marriage. According to Chief Justice Roberts,

29) Allowing these marriages would change everything from behavior to the way the youth is raised. (Bennett p. 29) The intent of same sex marriages would be to strengthen and celebrate marriage, however, Bennett feels that this would not be reality. Bennett says that the religious issues will be brought up along with the ideas of what is a 4,000 year old tradition and that there is a fine line that needs to be addressed and watched. If one group of people were to marry, what would stop any other groups or any other strange arrangements from being made? (Bennett p. 30) What would stop a father form marrying his daughter or a bisexual marrying one of each sex? (Bennett p.30) Bennett feels that according to what Sullivan has stated, these marriages would have to be allowed otherwise these people would be excluded. If these others are not allowed then the homosexuals are receiving special treatment. Morality issues will be brought out and that fine line will be crossed and there will be nothing to uphold moral standards. This is a great country in which family and marriage are elevated and revered. (Bennett p. 30) “We should keep them so.” (Bennett p.30)

Gay marriage has been an issue for a very long time and since some states are legalizing it, many worry that it would soon be added as an amendment. The topic of gay marriage brings up religious, legal, and many other issues. In "What's wrong with Gay Marriage?" by Katha Pollitt, the author supports gay marriage and wants it legalized. She states that there is no problem with gay marriage and it's all a matter of separating the church and state. But in “Gay ‘Marriage’: Societal Suicide,” by Charles Colson, the author opposes the idea of gay marriage and states that it will destroy society. Marriage is intended to unite a man and a woman together to bring children into the world, but due to the same-sex marriage,

The decision reached at the Supreme Court regarding the case of Obergefell v. Hodges is that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to be allowed to marry each other. To make it plain and simple, my belief is that I agree with the court’s decision. Whether you are a homosexual couple or heterosexual couple, I believe your marriage rights should be equal and not separated due to any religious beliefs and other’s personal feelings. I believe people have a fundamental right to practice their religion, but that right doesn’t grant anyone the power to force said religious beliefs onto anyone. America is the land of the free, you can do what you believe in as long as it doesn’t harm others and is safe for yourself and the people whom are affected

Debates about gay marriage continue to simmer within American public discourse, though much of the more heated rhetoric has calmed since the earliest efforts to legalize same-sex marriage succeeded in numerous states. These debates have spanned many topics, ranging from religion to politics and beyond. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay and self-described conservative political commentator, addressed one angle of the issue in his July 19, 2011 Newsweek Magazine article “Why Gay Marriage is Good for America.” Through a mixture of personal reflection, social commentary, and political argumentation, Sullivan’s article is less a defense of gay marriage than it is a defense of the idea that gay marriage is compatible with conservative political values. Although Sullivan makes a good case for his position in the article, his argument is ultimately under-developed; the lengthy personal reflections serve to reinforce a relatively minor point in the context of the larger argument, shifting focus away from the more relevant portions of the argument.

In a remarkable article that appeared in the Washington Post, William J. Bennett argued that recognizing same-sex marriage would be detrimental to the concept of marriage and to the nation. The only thing more remarkable than the logical fallacies relied upon in the article was the fact that the author was the former Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the George H. W. Bush administration.

Gay marriage is a very talked about topic in are country that shouldn’t be ignored. I believe men and women should be able to love freely and not be shamed by it. Marriage is a great factor in the United States. To some people it’s what we live for; is to get married and start a family. To not give everyone the same opportunity to have a happy marriage and family is unlike us. This problem is bringing a lot of hate, the same hate that was used in racial discrimination so why not give gays equal rights like everyone else. Andrew Sullivan wrote a article that shares his experiences of coming out and being accepted. When puberty hit he started to realize he wasn’t the same. He knew that his marriage is not going to be the same as his

Same sex marriage has been widely looked down upon for ages. People say, “It’s not the traditional constitutional marriage”, or “Children need a mother and a father”. It honestly doesn’t matter. If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry. It’s just as simple as that. What other reason do you need? If two complete strangers of the same sex want to be together for the rest of their lives, we should let them.First, denying some people to marry is discriminatory. Judge Sarah Zabel of Miami-Dade Circuit Court ruled the gay marriage ban of Florida unconstitutional. She stated that it, “serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as 2nd class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society.” In other words, you’re looking down upon same sex couples that want to get married as if they’re lower than you; that they don’t deserve the same rights as us. Same sex couples would be able to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual couples if they were able to be married.Furthermore, the General Accounting Office made an assessment in 2004 about the benefits that heterosexual married couples have that same sex couples could not. Some of these benefits include hospital visitation during an illness and the option of filing a joint tax return to reduce a tax burden. Imagine not being able to see your significant other in the hospital

Sullivan (2002) and Bennett (2002) both use religious assertions to explain their views on same-sex marriages. Sullivan (2002) says that

As we know, same-sex marriage has been a prominent issue that has so many arguments not just in the United States, but around the world over many years now. There is absolutely nothing more controversial than same-sex marriage in gay rights topic. Everyone has different opinions about same-sex marriage whether it should be legal or not. We now have to consider two aspects that are moral and religious. These two form a fundamental belief that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are different. Based on the definition of marriage, the view of religion, bad effects to children, and the lifestyle that should not be encouraged; therefore, the government should not legalize the same-sex marriage.