Dimitri
April 30th, 2012, 10:58 AM
I had to write a piece on something that was controversial so I wrote it on Gay marriage in the United States. I figured I would post it here, for shits and giggles. I have been working on this for about two weeks. This is what I will be graded on for my final exam in my College Composition Class...
I hate rhetoric writing.
Acceptation of Same-Sex Marriage
Six Myths
Robert L. Burns III
Stark State University
=
Abstract
Gay marriage is a majorly controversial topic and in many peoples opinions shall remain to be until the time when it is accepted in every state of the United States of America. An analysis coupled with Professor William Eskridge’s lecture/debate on the six major myths of same-sex marriage couples with a pole from the public opinion on the family has been brought together to produce a detailed rhetoric passage. Same-sex marriage will become something that will be accepted in the future, it just needs time.
Body
Attitudes change from time to time and while gay marriage has been a subject of high debate it is still a very controversial topic among many people. The right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is something that all, men or women, men and men and women and women should be able to strive for. In the book of John, chapter 13 versus 34 it states; “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” And later in Leviticus chapter 19 versus 18 it says "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.” It does not matter who you are, where you come from or what you believe in, you should be allowed to marry whomever you chose.
There have been and still are many researches that continue providing constant insight to the topic of Gay Marriage. Professor William N. Eskridge, Jr. is the John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale Law School. His primary legal academic interest has been statutory interpretation. Together with Professor Philip Frickey, he developed an innovative casebook on Legislation. In 1990-95, Professor Eskridge represented a gay couple suing for recognition of their same-sex marriage. In the fall of 2011 Professor Eskridge taught a lecture on the Six Myths That Confuse The Marriage Equality Debate and some of the major myths that he spoke about were horrific. “For example, many Americans have associated homosexuality with child molestation (and some still do)” (Eskridge, 2011). Not only is this statement completely false but also it is one of the most vicious anti-gay myths.
Some people have formed the idea that gay marriage will have a disastrous impact on the institution of marriage. Many supports of same-sex marriage think that this can only be accomplished through the courts, by the ruling of a judge. Same-sex marriage supporters also advocate that the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs are the main obstacle in the way of marriage equality. When it comes down to it there are six key myths that surround these thoughts, one being that no society has ever recognized same-sex marriage. In the 1990’s people argued that marriage was limited to one man and one woman who could procreate within their union. “Most of the historical purposes of marriage— economically efficient households, political alliances, romantic coupling, and rearing children—do not require that the partners be different sexes or capable of procreating within the relationship” (Eskridge, 2011).
The next big thing would have to be that gay marriage would have a big impact on “Marriage” itself. Both former presidents agreed upon it; William Clinton, a moderate Democrat and George W. Bush, a conservative Republican that marriage equality for gay people will undermine “traditional marriage” for everyone else. Richard Santorum, a former senator stated that there is empirical evidence proving that gay marriage would destroy the institution of marriage itself. There is a large problem with this type of thinking. It may be that some liberalizing reforms, such as legalized cohabitation and no-fault divorce, have contributed to the decline of marriage as an institution, but gay marriage is not the same kind of liberalization. Along with other supporters Richard Santorum claimed that the past decline of marriages in both Denmark and other Scandinavian states between the years of 1989 to 1995 was a direct result of the marriage-like partnerships that many lesbian and gay couples participated in.
Another myth is that marriage equality needs judicial approval to succeed. Civil rights cases that were brought forward by racial minorities made it become a popular idea that minority groups that were and are looked down upon can find and secure equal rights through constitutional litigation. The judiciary branch of government is the branch of government that would most likely to grant rights to unpopular minorities. Many supporters of same-sex marriage use and follow the model of the civil rights cases to base their activities upon. One can assume that judges are more “enlightened” regarding social justice issues than the common person that you walk by every day on your way to work.
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. This law specifically made it so that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. It also states that the federal government defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." However, the Defense of Marriage Act does not require individual states to adopt this definition, nor does it ban states from allowing same-sex marriages.
Despite President Obama and his strong support for gay rights, his administration filed a motion in June 2009 to dismiss a case in California seeking to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. The motion acknowledged that the Defense of Marriage Act permits each state to decide the legal status of same-sex marriage and said that married same-sex couples were not entitled to constitutional acknowledgement of their married status. Yet in August, the White House issued a statement on another Defense of Marriage Act defense brief, saying that the brief "makes clear ... that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress (Same-Sex Marriage, 2010)."
Most legal scholars agree that is gay marriage receives the threat of law; “gay rights” will be pitted against the rights of religious freedom. Gay activists will argue that the government cannot “subsidize discrimination,” and the courts will agree. Religious institutions will find that freedom to practice and even say what they believe about sexuality and marriage will increasingly be restricted. Pastors and other religious leaders in countries such as Canada and Sweden have been taken to court and charged with hate crimes because they preached sermons condemning homosexual practices as being of a sinful nature.
Nobody thinks churches or minsters will be forced to marry gay couples, although they may lose their legal privilege to register marriages if they refuse to do so. But through licensure and government grants a wide variety of faith-based organizations will face growing pressure to abandon their stand on homosexual practice and gay marriage.
Other legal procedures might meet gay peoples concerns but what harm is being done with a carefully written law that defines a number of rights as part of a legally recognized civil union. That does not mean that those rights should include everything but the name of marriage. Given the purpose of marriage law, some rights and benefits – more specifically those designated to strengthen the likelihood that children grow up with both biological parents – belong only to those who are married and not to those in civil unions. That would be fair, and also a test. If the gay community’s real agenda is to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle, the community will reject civil unions. If the agenda is, as many now claim, to gain appropriate benefits and rights, the gay community will accept civil unions and not press for gay marriage.
It is also widely believed that religious faith is the main obstacle that stands in the way of equal rights for gay people in general and to marriage equality in particular. There is no doubt in any one persons mind that the United States were built and founded upon religious morals and ethics. There is little doubt that higher faith traditions in this country read scripture in a way that is not only endangering to equality for gay people but also reflects and perhaps contributes to the hostility towards gay people. Does that mean that religion is going to be constantly opposing equal treatment for gay people? No, no it does not. Biblical support for homophobia is remarkably thin in the Judeo-Christian traditions. Yes, in Leviticus is does mandate against men “lying” with men but it only applied to anal sex and it had no mention of sex between women. What is even more entertaining is that no one, except for Orthodox Jews follows the Levitical mandates. Some would then go to involve the biblical story of Sin of Sodom with homosexuality but many biblical scholars have established this as a cautionary tale about sexual assault and rape. The Old Testament, in short has nothing to say about lesbian relationships and almost virtually nothing about sexual relationships between men. Meanwhile it is true that the Old Testament commonly assumes that sexual relationships will normally be between men and women we cannot say that this assumption ought to be taken into consideration to become a demanded normative rule.
Second to last myth is that a resolution of the gay marriage debate is needed now. In 2004 President George W. Bush and his supports of the Federal Marriage Amendment said that the nation needed to resolve the issue of marriage equality by immortalizing one man and one-woman marriage in the United States Constitution through an amendment. At that time, pro-gay lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies brought the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case in 2008 to resolve this issue immediately by enshrining marriage equality in the United States Constitution through the opinion of the Supreme Court. What is the rush, everyone thinks that they have to place their answers to the debate as soon as possible.
Now, onto our last myth. Gay marriage will sweep the country in the next five to ten years. Some believe that the country has reached a tipping point since marriage equality has become accepted in seven of the fifty states. The younger generations are strongly in favor of equality for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. To some it is only a matter of time before gay marriage sweeps the country and takes over.
A public pole that was taken in 2003 shows the opinions of eight hundred and ninety-eight people who oppose gay marriage. Twenty-eight percent of them opposed gay marriage because they say it is morally wrong and it goes against the teachings of the Bible. Seventeen percent of they state that is it against their religious beliefs. Some, sixteen percent to be exact, say that their reason is because the definition of marriage is a man and a woman. Their reasons for opposition just go on and on.
In the United States, marriage laws are enacted by the individual states, not by the federal government. Yet the federal government has intervened where it has determined that constitutional rights have been violated. The argument that same-sex couples should have the right to marry can be traced to the civil rights movement, which supported efforts to repeal state miscegenation laws that forbade interracial marriages. In 1942 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Skinner v. Oklahoma that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights." Loving v. Virginia, decided by the Supreme Court in 1967, ended race discrimination in marriage and also affirmed: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men (Same-sex marriage, 2010)." These decisions paved the way for same-sex couples to demand equal marriage rights. Beginning in the early 1970s, individual gay and lesbian couples applied for marriage licenses in various states, but these efforts did not succeed. Though some couples sued, the lawsuits were also rejected.
The tide began to turn in 1993, when three same-sex couples in Hawaii sued the state for marriage licenses. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state was required to demonstrate sufficient reason for denying the licenses, or stop discriminating. In a 1996 trial decision, Judge Kevin Chang ruled that there is no good reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Despite this clear ruling to end discrimination in marriage, Hawaii amended its constitution to block same-sex marriages.
These developments fueled growing activism for same-sex marriage rights. In 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to the same rights as couples in heterosexual marriages, but the state legislature enacted civil unions, rather than full marriage, for same-sex couples. In 2001, the same year that the Netherlands became the first country to give same-sex couples full marriage rights, seven same-sex couples in Massachusetts who had been denied marriage licenses sued the state. Their case was bolstered by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws and stated that the "moral disapproval" of voters or government is not a valid basis for discrimination in marriage. In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state constitution mandates equality in marriage for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Three months later the court specified that civil unions did not meet this requirement, and on May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Since 2002 opponents of same-sex marriage have worked to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It has been introduced to the U.S. Congress in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2008 but has failed to gain enough support to pass. Those in favor of Federal Marriage Act argue that the federal government must intervene to stop same-sex marriage because, where it is allowed, it has been the result of advocate judges imposing their views against the will of voters. This, say proponents of Federal Marriage Act, amounts to an abuse of judicial power. Proponents also argue that same-sex marriage threatens the federally recognized special status of opposite-sex marriages and that a constitutional amendment must be enacted to protect this status and prevent other types of marriages.

Federal Marriage Act opponents, however, say that the amendment would violate state rights to regulate marriage laws. They also argue that it would restrict civil rights and violate the right to privacy. Some religious groups also oppose the Federal Marriage Act, arguing that it is not the government's role to define marriage and that the amendment would violate freedom of religion.
When even Christianity Today is asking, "Is the Gay Marriage Debate Over?" the issue has become so critical that it demands close attention. Believing (wrongly) that the debate is over, some evangelicals have decided that Christians should let the state define marriage any way it chooses and focus their attention only on what the Church does. This would be a fundamental mistake. The debate is one in which we must be involved for the sake of our society itself. Even a state such as ours, which does not use the law to promote or discourage particular religious beliefs, nevertheless has a huge stake in marriage. It is not simply a religious issue. The law is a moral teacher. Most people assume that if something is legal, it is moral—or at least not immoral. What is legal soon will become normal. Every society requires an ongoing supply of babies who grow up to be good citizens. Every civilization has known what contemporary sociologists now demonstrate: Children grow best into wholesome adults when they live with their biological mother and father. Marriage law is a crucial way in which the state promotes the sound nurturing of the next generation of citizens.
Legalizing gay marriage would weaken the connection between marriage and procreation—and the connection between biological parents and their biological children—which is why court cases in support of gay marriage typically downgrade the role of procreation. The Massachusetts Supreme Court said that the state is indifferent to family structure. When Canada legalized same-sex marriage, it tossed out the definition of "natural" parent and replaced it with "legal" parent.
All and all, after milling the thoughts and prospects one could venture to guess that you either know of or know someone who is a Lesbian, Gay, Transgender or Bisexual or maybe you are even confused about this yourself— why else would you be reading something like this. If you loved someone and wanted to spend the rest of your life with them why is it any different for two guys to be together than it is for a man and women to be together in holy matrimony. Yes, many locations in the United States recognize civil unions but civil unions do not provide the benefits that a legalized marriage ceremony provides. In a legal marriage the benefits are endless, ranging from the ability to file joint taxes, inheriting a spouses estate should they pass away all the way to living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, D.C., New York and Maine), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.
The choice is yours, are you going to let something that will never physically affect you and deny someone the happiness that you have just because they have found it with someone of the same gender or are you going to support your friends and welcome the coming changes with open arms like so many others have…
References
Bernstein, M. (2006). The marriage contract. In S. Seidman, N. Fischer, C.
Meeks(Ed.) Introducing the new sexuality studies: Original essays and interviews (pp. 330-336). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brumbaugh, S., Sanchez, L., Nock, S., & Wright, J. (2008). Attitudes toward gay
marriage in states undergoing marriage law transformation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 345-359. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00486.x
Krauthammer, C. (2004). The united states does not need a federal marriage
amendment. In. A. Ojeda(Ed.), Homosexuality. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven
Press. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?
Musgrave, M. (2004).The United states needs a federal marriage amendment. In. A.
Ojeda(Ed.), Homosexuality. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?
Public Opinion on The Family. (2004). Main reasons for opposing gay marriage.
Retrieved from http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1356/Public-Opinion-on-Family-FAMILY-LIFE-IN-TECHNOLOGY-AGE.html
Salka, W., & Burnett, R. (2011). Determinants of electoral support for anti-gay
marriage constitutional amendments: An examination of ballot issues in
california and florida. Sexuality & Culture, 16, 59-75. doi: 10.1007/s12119-011-9099-9
Same-sex marriage. (2010). Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library.
Detroit, MI: Gale. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?
Sider, R. (2012). Repealing the defense of marriage act would threaten religious
freedom. In. L. M. Zott(Ed.), Church and state. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?
Eskridge, W. N. (2011) Six myths that confuse the marriage equality debate,
Valparaiso University Law Review, 46 103-116.
I hate rhetoric writing.
Acceptation of Same-Sex Marriage
Six Myths
Robert L. Burns III
Stark State University
=
Abstract
Gay marriage is a majorly controversial topic and in many peoples opinions shall remain to be until the time when it is accepted in every state of the United States of America. An analysis coupled with Professor William Eskridge’s lecture/debate on the six major myths of same-sex marriage couples with a pole from the public opinion on the family has been brought together to produce a detailed rhetoric passage. Same-sex marriage will become something that will be accepted in the future, it just needs time.
Body
Attitudes change from time to time and while gay marriage has been a subject of high debate it is still a very controversial topic among many people. The right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is something that all, men or women, men and men and women and women should be able to strive for. In the book of John, chapter 13 versus 34 it states; “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” And later in Leviticus chapter 19 versus 18 it says "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.” It does not matter who you are, where you come from or what you believe in, you should be allowed to marry whomever you chose.
There have been and still are many researches that continue providing constant insight to the topic of Gay Marriage. Professor William N. Eskridge, Jr. is the John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale Law School. His primary legal academic interest has been statutory interpretation. Together with Professor Philip Frickey, he developed an innovative casebook on Legislation. In 1990-95, Professor Eskridge represented a gay couple suing for recognition of their same-sex marriage. In the fall of 2011 Professor Eskridge taught a lecture on the Six Myths That Confuse The Marriage Equality Debate and some of the major myths that he spoke about were horrific. “For example, many Americans have associated homosexuality with child molestation (and some still do)” (Eskridge, 2011). Not only is this statement completely false but also it is one of the most vicious anti-gay myths.
Some people have formed the idea that gay marriage will have a disastrous impact on the institution of marriage. Many supports of same-sex marriage think that this can only be accomplished through the courts, by the ruling of a judge. Same-sex marriage supporters also advocate that the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs are the main obstacle in the way of marriage equality. When it comes down to it there are six key myths that surround these thoughts, one being that no society has ever recognized same-sex marriage. In the 1990’s people argued that marriage was limited to one man and one woman who could procreate within their union. “Most of the historical purposes of marriage— economically efficient households, political alliances, romantic coupling, and rearing children—do not require that the partners be different sexes or capable of procreating within the relationship” (Eskridge, 2011).
The next big thing would have to be that gay marriage would have a big impact on “Marriage” itself. Both former presidents agreed upon it; William Clinton, a moderate Democrat and George W. Bush, a conservative Republican that marriage equality for gay people will undermine “traditional marriage” for everyone else. Richard Santorum, a former senator stated that there is empirical evidence proving that gay marriage would destroy the institution of marriage itself. There is a large problem with this type of thinking. It may be that some liberalizing reforms, such as legalized cohabitation and no-fault divorce, have contributed to the decline of marriage as an institution, but gay marriage is not the same kind of liberalization. Along with other supporters Richard Santorum claimed that the past decline of marriages in both Denmark and other Scandinavian states between the years of 1989 to 1995 was a direct result of the marriage-like partnerships that many lesbian and gay couples participated in.
Another myth is that marriage equality needs judicial approval to succeed. Civil rights cases that were brought forward by racial minorities made it become a popular idea that minority groups that were and are looked down upon can find and secure equal rights through constitutional litigation. The judiciary branch of government is the branch of government that would most likely to grant rights to unpopular minorities. Many supporters of same-sex marriage use and follow the model of the civil rights cases to base their activities upon. One can assume that judges are more “enlightened” regarding social justice issues than the common person that you walk by every day on your way to work.
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. This law specifically made it so that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. It also states that the federal government defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." However, the Defense of Marriage Act does not require individual states to adopt this definition, nor does it ban states from allowing same-sex marriages.
Despite President Obama and his strong support for gay rights, his administration filed a motion in June 2009 to dismiss a case in California seeking to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. The motion acknowledged that the Defense of Marriage Act permits each state to decide the legal status of same-sex marriage and said that married same-sex couples were not entitled to constitutional acknowledgement of their married status. Yet in August, the White House issued a statement on another Defense of Marriage Act defense brief, saying that the brief "makes clear ... that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress (Same-Sex Marriage, 2010)."
Most legal scholars agree that is gay marriage receives the threat of law; “gay rights” will be pitted against the rights of religious freedom. Gay activists will argue that the government cannot “subsidize discrimination,” and the courts will agree. Religious institutions will find that freedom to practice and even say what they believe about sexuality and marriage will increasingly be restricted. Pastors and other religious leaders in countries such as Canada and Sweden have been taken to court and charged with hate crimes because they preached sermons condemning homosexual practices as being of a sinful nature.
Nobody thinks churches or minsters will be forced to marry gay couples, although they may lose their legal privilege to register marriages if they refuse to do so. But through licensure and government grants a wide variety of faith-based organizations will face growing pressure to abandon their stand on homosexual practice and gay marriage.
Other legal procedures might meet gay peoples concerns but what harm is being done with a carefully written law that defines a number of rights as part of a legally recognized civil union. That does not mean that those rights should include everything but the name of marriage. Given the purpose of marriage law, some rights and benefits – more specifically those designated to strengthen the likelihood that children grow up with both biological parents – belong only to those who are married and not to those in civil unions. That would be fair, and also a test. If the gay community’s real agenda is to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle, the community will reject civil unions. If the agenda is, as many now claim, to gain appropriate benefits and rights, the gay community will accept civil unions and not press for gay marriage.
It is also widely believed that religious faith is the main obstacle that stands in the way of equal rights for gay people in general and to marriage equality in particular. There is no doubt in any one persons mind that the United States were built and founded upon religious morals and ethics. There is little doubt that higher faith traditions in this country read scripture in a way that is not only endangering to equality for gay people but also reflects and perhaps contributes to the hostility towards gay people. Does that mean that religion is going to be constantly opposing equal treatment for gay people? No, no it does not. Biblical support for homophobia is remarkably thin in the Judeo-Christian traditions. Yes, in Leviticus is does mandate against men “lying” with men but it only applied to anal sex and it had no mention of sex between women. What is even more entertaining is that no one, except for Orthodox Jews follows the Levitical mandates. Some would then go to involve the biblical story of Sin of Sodom with homosexuality but many biblical scholars have established this as a cautionary tale about sexual assault and rape. The Old Testament, in short has nothing to say about lesbian relationships and almost virtually nothing about sexual relationships between men. Meanwhile it is true that the Old Testament commonly assumes that sexual relationships will normally be between men and women we cannot say that this assumption ought to be taken into consideration to become a demanded normative rule.
Second to last myth is that a resolution of the gay marriage debate is needed now. In 2004 President George W. Bush and his supports of the Federal Marriage Amendment said that the nation needed to resolve the issue of marriage equality by immortalizing one man and one-woman marriage in the United States Constitution through an amendment. At that time, pro-gay lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies brought the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case in 2008 to resolve this issue immediately by enshrining marriage equality in the United States Constitution through the opinion of the Supreme Court. What is the rush, everyone thinks that they have to place their answers to the debate as soon as possible.
Now, onto our last myth. Gay marriage will sweep the country in the next five to ten years. Some believe that the country has reached a tipping point since marriage equality has become accepted in seven of the fifty states. The younger generations are strongly in favor of equality for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. To some it is only a matter of time before gay marriage sweeps the country and takes over.
A public pole that was taken in 2003 shows the opinions of eight hundred and ninety-eight people who oppose gay marriage. Twenty-eight percent of them opposed gay marriage because they say it is morally wrong and it goes against the teachings of the Bible. Seventeen percent of they state that is it against their religious beliefs. Some, sixteen percent to be exact, say that their reason is because the definition of marriage is a man and a woman. Their reasons for opposition just go on and on.
In the United States, marriage laws are enacted by the individual states, not by the federal government. Yet the federal government has intervened where it has determined that constitutional rights have been violated. The argument that same-sex couples should have the right to marry can be traced to the civil rights movement, which supported efforts to repeal state miscegenation laws that forbade interracial marriages. In 1942 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Skinner v. Oklahoma that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights." Loving v. Virginia, decided by the Supreme Court in 1967, ended race discrimination in marriage and also affirmed: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men (Same-sex marriage, 2010)." These decisions paved the way for same-sex couples to demand equal marriage rights. Beginning in the early 1970s, individual gay and lesbian couples applied for marriage licenses in various states, but these efforts did not succeed. Though some couples sued, the lawsuits were also rejected.
The tide began to turn in 1993, when three same-sex couples in Hawaii sued the state for marriage licenses. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state was required to demonstrate sufficient reason for denying the licenses, or stop discriminating. In a 1996 trial decision, Judge Kevin Chang ruled that there is no good reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Despite this clear ruling to end discrimination in marriage, Hawaii amended its constitution to block same-sex marriages.
These developments fueled growing activism for same-sex marriage rights. In 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to the same rights as couples in heterosexual marriages, but the state legislature enacted civil unions, rather than full marriage, for same-sex couples. In 2001, the same year that the Netherlands became the first country to give same-sex couples full marriage rights, seven same-sex couples in Massachusetts who had been denied marriage licenses sued the state. Their case was bolstered by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws and stated that the "moral disapproval" of voters or government is not a valid basis for discrimination in marriage. In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state constitution mandates equality in marriage for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Three months later the court specified that civil unions did not meet this requirement, and on May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Since 2002 opponents of same-sex marriage have worked to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It has been introduced to the U.S. Congress in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2008 but has failed to gain enough support to pass. Those in favor of Federal Marriage Act argue that the federal government must intervene to stop same-sex marriage because, where it is allowed, it has been the result of advocate judges imposing their views against the will of voters. This, say proponents of Federal Marriage Act, amounts to an abuse of judicial power. Proponents also argue that same-sex marriage threatens the federally recognized special status of opposite-sex marriages and that a constitutional amendment must be enacted to protect this status and prevent other types of marriages.

Federal Marriage Act opponents, however, say that the amendment would violate state rights to regulate marriage laws. They also argue that it would restrict civil rights and violate the right to privacy. Some religious groups also oppose the Federal Marriage Act, arguing that it is not the government's role to define marriage and that the amendment would violate freedom of religion.
When even Christianity Today is asking, "Is the Gay Marriage Debate Over?" the issue has become so critical that it demands close attention. Believing (wrongly) that the debate is over, some evangelicals have decided that Christians should let the state define marriage any way it chooses and focus their attention only on what the Church does. This would be a fundamental mistake. The debate is one in which we must be involved for the sake of our society itself. Even a state such as ours, which does not use the law to promote or discourage particular religious beliefs, nevertheless has a huge stake in marriage. It is not simply a religious issue. The law is a moral teacher. Most people assume that if something is legal, it is moral—or at least not immoral. What is legal soon will become normal. Every society requires an ongoing supply of babies who grow up to be good citizens. Every civilization has known what contemporary sociologists now demonstrate: Children grow best into wholesome adults when they live with their biological mother and father. Marriage law is a crucial way in which the state promotes the sound nurturing of the next generation of citizens.
Legalizing gay marriage would weaken the connection between marriage and procreation—and the connection between biological parents and their biological children—which is why court cases in support of gay marriage typically downgrade the role of procreation. The Massachusetts Supreme Court said that the state is indifferent to family structure. When Canada legalized same-sex marriage, it tossed out the definition of "natural" parent and replaced it with "legal" parent.
All and all, after milling the thoughts and prospects one could venture to guess that you either know of or know someone who is a Lesbian, Gay, Transgender or Bisexual or maybe you are even confused about this yourself— why else would you be reading something like this. If you loved someone and wanted to spend the rest of your life with them why is it any different for two guys to be together than it is for a man and women to be together in holy matrimony. Yes, many locations in the United States recognize civil unions but civil unions do not provide the benefits that a legalized marriage ceremony provides. In a legal marriage the benefits are endless, ranging from the ability to file joint taxes, inheriting a spouses estate should they pass away all the way to living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, D.C., New York and Maine), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.
The choice is yours, are you going to let something that will never physically affect you and deny someone the happiness that you have just because they have found it with someone of the same gender or are you going to support your friends and welcome the coming changes with open arms like so many others have…
References
Bernstein, M. (2006). The marriage contract. In S. Seidman, N. Fischer, C.
Meeks(Ed.) Introducing the new sexuality studies: Original essays and interviews (pp. 330-336). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brumbaugh, S., Sanchez, L., Nock, S., & Wright, J. (2008). Attitudes toward gay
marriage in states undergoing marriage law transformation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 345-359. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00486.x
Krauthammer, C. (2004). The united states does not need a federal marriage
amendment. In. A. Ojeda(Ed.), Homosexuality. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven
Press. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?
Musgrave, M. (2004).The United states needs a federal marriage amendment. In. A.
Ojeda(Ed.), Homosexuality. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?
Public Opinion on The Family. (2004). Main reasons for opposing gay marriage.
Retrieved from http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1356/Public-Opinion-on-Family-FAMILY-LIFE-IN-TECHNOLOGY-AGE.html
Salka, W., & Burnett, R. (2011). Determinants of electoral support for anti-gay
marriage constitutional amendments: An examination of ballot issues in
california and florida. Sexuality & Culture, 16, 59-75. doi: 10.1007/s12119-011-9099-9
Same-sex marriage. (2010). Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library.
Detroit, MI: Gale. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?
Sider, R. (2012). Repealing the defense of marriage act would threaten religious
freedom. In. L. M. Zott(Ed.), Church and state. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?
Eskridge, W. N. (2011) Six myths that confuse the marriage equality debate,
Valparaiso University Law Review, 46 103-116.