SAme sex marriage
... as an endorsement of traditional values. They complain that gay relationships are “promiscuous”, but then oppose allowing same-sex couples to join together in a legal institution that promotes stability and long-term commitment. In an age of AIDS, encouraging marriage is a wise public-health strategy. The rights and privileges of marriage are based on the assumption that a couple will have children and raise them within the legal structure provided by the state. If having children is not the point of legal marriage, then there is no reason to provide married couples with special benefits. Some married heterosexual couples do not have children. The government cannot quiz betrothed couples on whether they plan to reproduce. Permitting gays to marry would further chip away at the original intent of the institution. In the debate over the pros and cons of same-sex marriage opponents argue that same-sex marriage challenges and undermines the traditional definition of marriage. A union between a man, and a woman and that its legality would harm any children brought up within the marriage. Same-sex marriage supporters point out studies that have shown there is no conclusive evidence that children of same-sex couples would be adversely affected because their parents are gay. According to CBS News, studies show that children adopted by parents that are homosexual are more adjusted than those brought up in heterosexual families. Religious values should not dictate who gets married. Our country was founded on freedom of religion and the right to believe whatever you would like. How is it fair for us to say that someone is wrong for loving and wanting to marry someone of the same sex just because our religion states otherwise. Isn’t this a contradiction to everything that was great about our country? In Hawaii, the issue before the court is civil marriage - the state’s right to issue marriage licenses. Separation of church and state is a fundamental democratic principle. Religions would still be free to decide whether or not to perform gay marriages. The decision to marry should belong to the individual not to the government, religious groups, or political extremists. Those who oppose same-sex marriage however, have come up with the following argument to support their ideology. They believe that same-sex marriage is a violation of basic biblical tenets. Some European countries have legalized same-sex marriages including Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and France. Canada has passed recent legislation recognizing same-sex marriages. oposers preach that America’s laws were written to preserve the Judeo-Christian tradition, which deems homosexuality aberrant. Marriage as an institution is already threatened by divorce and by the erosion of religion and family values. They also believe if gay couples were allowed to marry, it would set a bad example for children and could spell the downfall of one of the cornerstones of our society. Last November the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that excluding gay couples from civil marriage violated the state constitution. (U.S News) The court gave the legislature six months—until May 2004—to do something about it. Some legislators mounted efforts to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. With unexpected urgency the country faces the possibility that marriage licenses might soon be issued to homosexual couples. Many people feel that one state court should not dictate marriage laws for the entire nation. If gay marriages become legal in Massachusetts, other states may have to recognize them, as well, because the U.S. Constitution requires each state to grant “full faith and credit” to the acts of other states. In a CBS News poll conducted immediately after President Bush endorsed a constitutional ban on gay marriage, 59% of Americans said they would favor an amendment to the Constitution that would “allow marriage only between a man and a woman.” This shows that many states do not want to recognize same-sex unions and don’t feel that they should be forced to do so. Same-sex marriage should not be treated as an all-or-nothing national decision. Instead individual states should be left to try gay marriage if and when they choose. There should be no national ban or national mandate. Not only would a decentralized approach be in keeping with the country’s most venerable legal traditions, it would also improve the odds of making same-sex marriage work for gay and straight Americans. The debate is not just dividing Ameri...