Gay Marraig
...Arkansas campus that urged voters to pass an amendment on the state level to ban gay marriage in Arkansas. Many religious organizations are vocal in their efforts to protect traditional marriage. A lot of other citizens are in the middle trying to make sense of the controversy. Gay marriage is an issue that will not just go away. It must be dealt with promptly and responsibly. It is only a matter of time until the country will reach its decision. One solution is to give the states the right to decide whether to allow gay marriage in its own state. Senator Waxman of California leans toward this solution because he believes that any ban on gay marriage would deny gays and lesbians basic rights under the Constitution (Davis 1). Many gay couples would like to see their marriage recognized in their home state. In Georgia, lawyers are fighting a marriage amendment because they believe it “covers too many issues and is too confusing to voters.” The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon refuses to accept a marriage amendment, and they intend to continue the debate over same-sex marriage (Wetzstein 1-2). Many other states experience similar controversies over gay marriage. History shows that it can be dangerous to allow states to have differing laws on such a huge, controversial issue. The Civil War resulted from states being divided over slavery. A nation split simply cannot stand the test of time. Unfortunately, this is the solution in use in the nation thus far. However, just because it is the current solution does not mean that it should stay that way. Continuing in this direction could cause our society to crumble. The other solution is to pass a national marriage amendment to ban gay marriage. President Bush pushed for the passage of such a measure in the House and Senate. However, no success is evident yet (Davis 1). A Federal Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996. The act states that “no state or territory is required to recognize a same-sex marriage sanctioned by another state or territory” (Murray 1). This still does not put a ban on gay marriage. Being without a national marriage amendment is risky for everyone. Matthew Staver believes that “sanctioning same-sex marriage would have a distinct destabilizing effect on the health, welfare, education, and morals of the country. It is necessary that the Constitution be amended to protect traditional marriage. While states have been permitted to regulate the edges of marriage, such as the ceremonies, dissolution, support, custody, and visitation, they have never been allowed to modify its very essence-the legal union of one man and one woman” (1). If a national marriage amendment does not pass, the states would constantly feud over whether to accept a same-sex marriage sanctioned by a sister state (Murray 2). It is impossible to continue much longer without a national standard. After examining each solution, I realize the importance of a national marriage amendment. I believe that this proposal serves the best interest of the nation as a whole. It is the legally and morally honorable thing to do. However, it also holds a lot of political and logical value. I agree with Linda Waite in her belief tha...