Triple Language Analysis Essay (Gay Marriage)

In Andrew J. Cherlin’s essay “American Marriage In Transition”, he discusses how marriage in America is evolving from the universal marriage. Cherlin’s definition of the universal marriage in his essay is the man is the breadwinner of the household and the woman is the homemaker. In the 20th century according to Cherlin, the meaning of marriage has been altered such as the changing division of labor, childbearing outside of marriage, cohabitation, gay marriage and the result of long- term cultural and material trends (1154). During the first transition of marriage, Cherlin discusses how in America, Europe, and Canada the only socially accepted way to have sexual relations with a person and to have children is to be married (1154). The second change in marriage occurred in 2000, where the median age of marriage in the United States for men is 27 and women is 25 (1155). Many young adults stayed single during this time and focused on their education and starting their careers. During the second change, the role of law increasingly changed, especially in the role of law in divorce (1155). It is proven in today’s research marriage has a different definition than what it did back in the 1950’s. Today marriage can be defined as getting married to the same gender or getting remarried to someone who already has kids. The roles in a marriage are evolving to be a little more flexible and negotiable. However, women still do a lot of the basic household chores and taking care of the

Lobby groups such as Marriage Equality Australia and the NSW Gay and Lesbian Lobby Group were instrumental in securing equal rights for homosexual de facto couples, and are currently campaigns for the legislation of same sex marriage. Despite a galaxy polls show that 63% of Australians were in favour of same-sex marriage (‘Majority of Australia supports same-sex marriage’, January 201, SMH), the law has refused to acknowledge it, enacts the Marriage Act Amendment (2004) to stipulate the definition of marriage as being between a ‘man and a women’. However, former PM Kevin Rudd has acknowledged the movement of same-sex marriage, promising to enact it if he were to be re-elected (PM promises legislation of same-sex marriage, August 2013, SMH). As such, it can be seen that although the law has been slower in recognising same-sex marriage, it is still able to reflect contemporary societal values and issues, thus achieves a just outcome for those in same-sex relationships, protecting the individual rights to

political debate over the decisive issue of gay marriage forces us to rethink our commitment to

For Australian law to be effective it must be dynamic so it can reflect changing societal views, which law reform can help attain. A significant area of recent social change is the acceptance of same-sex relationships in Australian society. To mirror this, current law reforms have been somewhat effective in achieving just outcomes regarding the recognition of same-sex relationships in Commonwealth law. The combination of official recognition of same-sex relationships to an extent, attempts at removing discrimination in legislation, and the delay of justice denotes this. Considering the achievement of justice and the protection of individual’s rights, it is evident that law reform has significantly improved recognition of same-sex relationships, but there are more essential responses that need to be enacted.

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.

Katha Pollitt’s, “What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage,” is an article about why Gay Marriage should be accepted without question. Pollitt views what “social conservatives” (530) have to say about marriage, and how their belief that marriage is all about procreation isn’t persuasive to those outside of the “right-wing think tank, Catholic marriage tribunal, or ultra-Orthodox rabbi court.” (Pollitt 530). Pollitt tells her readers to scratch procreation and then examines the theory that, “marriage is the way women domesticate men.” Continuing with well known right-winger George Gilder’s theory, she uses his statistical support that married men are much less likely than single men to take drugs, steal a car, murder someone, etc against

Understandingly there is a feeling of threat that change will ‘hurt the traditional family’ but to continue to denounce the liberties of some based on capitalist gain is simply unconstitutional and unjust.

Equity and respect for others are two of the main values that are instantly presented to the audience. Wong makes it clear that they are two beliefs of hers that are not displayed frequently enough in Parliament, as if same sex couples were in a world where they were treated with a sense of egalitarianism and respect, then gay marriage would be unquestionably legalized. Improvement is also a prominent theme displayed by the author, who utilizes quotes such as ‘marriage equality is both necessary and overdue’ (Wong, 2016) and ‘gay and lesbian Australians can vote, serve in the military, represent our country on the sporting field, teach in our universities, preside as judges, staff our hospitals, and be a member of the federal cabinet. Yet we cannot marry the person we love’. (Wong, 2016) These two quotations are clear demonstrations of the author’s conviction that Australia can be undoubtedly improved with the introduction of new laws that allow citizens of all sexualities to

Back in this time many Australians weren’t aware of the fight for same sex marriage and many strongly disagreed. However, now that America has passed the legislation in support of gay marriage, Australians now see this as a more achievable

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,

Kevin McCullough’s article, “Governing Without Restrictions” (2015) argues in opposition of the “without limits” utopia of the Obama administration. McCullough supports his opinion with examples of how the Obama administration fights for policies that continually strip away dignity, while claiming their opponents are actually the morally questionable ones. He hopes to argue his opinion that restrictions on issues of sexual practice are necessary in order to share and preserve his supposed “family values”. The columnist speaks in a sarcastic and condescending tone to his liberal opponents, which supports that he is ideally speaking to people with similar conservative beliefs that wish to push their “right-wing” agenda.

When considering the word “family”, many people think of “Mom+Dad+2.5 children”--the nuclear family of television sitcom. However, this definition of family is a new interpretation that fit the rapid housing expansion of the Cold War years in the Western world. Conservatives have often decried the breakdown of this definition of family as a primary reason for their opposition to same sex marriage. As this was the predominant family structure for a lengthy period of time, most family law decisions have been written with this paradigm in mind, defining a husband/wife relationship as the norm. However, as gay marriage is legalized nationally, family law must adapt to newer definitions of the word “family”, in order to

He states his contempt for these views and states a detailed reason why gay marriage makes sense. He makes it known that he feels that gay marriage should be viewed as normal and gay marriage should be held to a similar standard. He feels that this union would help in domesticating men and make them reliable caregivers. In his article, he concludes by articulating that he is gay and would be ashamed if other homosexual individuals would not push for their right to marry (Rauch, p. 23).

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