Welcome back after our break from blogging. Please read the article "Justices weigh arguments in potential bellwether for same-sex marriage" from the Star Tribune on 3/5/08. And answer the following questions below:
1. Does it violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment for straights to have the right to marry but not gays?
2. Do you believe that "separate but equal" is possible in marriage or in any form of separation?
3. Do you think that the government should allow gay marriage, ban it, or it is too early to act on this hot issue?
Explain your opinion and be sure to reference the article specifically. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
57 comments:
Yes, for gays it does violate their 14th amendment rights. "Separate but equal" is misinterpreted from the constitution.
For Gays, their 14th amendment rights are violated. "Separate but equal" is constantly misinterpreted from the constitution all the time. In any marriage separate but equal would not work because to me the meaning is to vague.
I do not think it violates the protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I think that separate but equal is only possible in marriage but not in any other form. I don't think the government should allow gay marriage because the definition of marriage is being between one man and one woman. It would change tradition if you allow gays to be married and a lot of people might not like their traditions to be changed
I don't believe that its right to ban gay people from getting married. They are people all the same and deserve the rights everyone else has. Equal but seperate doesn't work because it gives people who don't like gays to dislike them even more and provide a way to outcast them. Nothing is equal if it's seperate, and there really is no need to do so anyways. In the article it says that the central question is “is one freighted with history, symbolism and emotion: What is so special about marriage?”
Marriage is what we see in our parent's relationship. We know what we're taught, and who's to say just because we allow gay marriages we will have no moral standards for marriage in general. It's not as if gay people don't take their marriage any less seriously then a straight couple does. Everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness, why would we take that away just because we don't want to accept how people feel?
I think that this does violate the 14th amendment rights of gay people. Also I believe that seperate but equal couldnt work in any marriage and should not be the way gay marriages are handled. It is way to early to act like this on the issue, it seems that everyone is split on the way they feel about gay marriages. If a country has split opinions, you cant just flip a coin and whatever side it ends up on wins. Their needs to be more debate over it and a deeper look at this issue before they make a choice on which way to act.
Yes, it does violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Gays do not get the same rights or protections at all. I don't believe that "seperate but equal" is possible. To be equal, all rights are the same, and seperate does not allow this. I personally believe gay marriages should be allowed. As stated in the article, "The definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman." And this quote has stood the test of time. However, I think it needs to be changed. Not allowing gay marriages is a total violation of Constitution.
1. I think it does because there is no legitimate reason to ban same-sex marriage. It poses no threat to society and everyone has a protected right to equal treatment.
2. I don't think it's possible. You can't say two things are equal yet treat them in different ways. It's just illogical.
3. I think they should allow gay marriage. There's lots of thing we may disagree with in the world but that does not give us the right to penalize them for it. Also, I don't find 'tradition' to be a valid defense.
The issue of gay marriage is one of the hottest topics I have heard about lately. The issue on gay marriage I believe should deal with the church's and not the government. The government doesn't marry people, that is the job of the church. But since it is up to the government they choose. I feel that the 14th deals with all the issues of separate but equal and gay marriage is part of that. If the government was to make a decision it would be a bad time, because i feel that this topic will become even hotter as more people are aware of the situation.
I believe it does violate the 14th Amendment. The equal protection clause is suppose to allow everyone to enjoy the same rights and for there to be no form of separation or segregation of people. Gays have the same right as straights to marry who are we to judge what is right and how marriage was to be intended?
I do not believe in any form of anything can “separate but equal” work. There is no possible way to make groups of people separate and equal at the same time.
I believe it should not be banned. In my opinion the main reason why this is so controversial is because the catholic and religious fanatical authorities in government dont want it to happen, if they dont want it to happen so bad than dont provide the ceremony, but who are you to judge others and what other church's believe or provide to people of any kind? They should be allowed the right to marry, especially in our country.
Gay marriage is a very big topic. I think that gays should have the right to marry the same sex if they choose to. I think it does violate the 14th Amendment because they are supposed to be treated equal. The government should allow gays to marry each other because it is their choice.
1. Yes, I think it does violate the clause, everyone should have the same rights, no matter what your race, religion, or even sexual orientation is.
2. In no way is "separate but equal" a possible answer. With that solution, nothing would be solved. We need to give all of the same rights to every citizen in the United States. When you are born, you inherit the many rights of the U.S., you do not lose them simply because you are not straight, and you do not lose them because you'd like to take the next step in a relationship.
3. I think that the government should legalize gay marriage, everyone deserves the right to marry, no matter who it is that they are marrying, unless it's a minor and they don't have parental consent. But in this case, where we have same-sex couples that want to tie the knot, they should be allowed, there's no real reason for why they shouldn't be able to take the next step.
Yes, it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to deny marriage and rights for gays. All people should be allowed to live happily, and should not be denied an "institution... too important to allow for alternatives that are by definition inferior." All people should be allowed the pursuit of happiness, this is one of the foundations of our country, and there is no reason at all that they should not be allowed to pursue this because of their sexual preference. Separate but equal is not possible in marriage in any form. By saying that they are separate is recognizing the fact that they are fundamentally different, when in reality they are actually the same thing. Two people that love each other, and want to spend their lives together. What gender they are is completely arbitrary. Letting Gays marry is not going to physically damage anybody. It is only damaging to not let people spend life together in happiness and therefore it should be illegal to not let same sex marriages be legal. The government should absolutely allow gay marriage. Not only in California, but all across the country. In California same sex couples may have the same rights as opposite sex couples, but in other states (like Minnesota) they may not have nearly the same rights. In Minnesota for example, opposite sex marriages have over 700 more rights than non- married same sex couples. This is completely against the 14th amendment and all of the foundations of our country. Again, as the article states, marriage is to important of an institution to allow for inferior alternatives that can definitely be separate, but in no way are "equal."
I think that the this case is similar to segregation, over the fact that to be equal you should have all the same rights and not separated. Gay couples are supposed to feel they have almost as many rights as a married, but they aren't allowed to be married. They should have all rights as a married couple, i personally don't approve of gay marriages but feel that they should have the right to express themselves through marriage. The 14th amendment gives equal rights to all not just straight people. The government banning gay marriage is against this amendment and the constitution itself.
I believe that instead of defining married couples as legaly married, both married straits and same sex couples should both be defined as domestic partnerships. According to our legal system the government should not be connected to a religion in any way. The ability to be married is not a right, it is a ritual performed by a private non-government controlled organization and therefore can not be guarenteed to all people and for this reason shouldnot be recognized by the government. Domestic partnership, however, can be guarenteed to all citizens and for this reasons all couples living together as a family should be recognized as domestic partnerships, not married couples.
I believe that in 2008 it is time to recognize gay marriage. Us restricting gay marriage is violating the 14th amendment which is no way right. Separate but equal is a very misunderstood thing which should not be addressed in this issue I think gays should be given equal rights with any situation. So I think the government should not be involved with this decision.
I don't agree with Sam Jones when he says, "It would change tradition if you allow gays to be married and a lot of people might not like their traditions to be changed" -Traditions change all the time, especially in America. We are constantly changing our traditions and the things around us. Just because some are scared of change doesn't mean we should ban it.
Yes, it does violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Gays do not get the same rights or protections at all. I don't believe that "seperate but equal" is possible. To be equal, all rights are the same, and seperate does not allow this. I personally believe gay marriages should be allowed. As stated in the article, "Marriage should be between one man and one woman." And this quote has stood the test of time. However, I think it needs to be changed. Not allowing gay marriages is a total violation of the Constitution.
1. Does it violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment for straights to have the right to marry but not gays?
I personally think so because who is the one to say who likes who? To me it feels like the supreme courts are the only people who say a couple can’t get married based on their sexual orientation. It shouldn’t make a difference if you’re gay or straight, if they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together- then who are the justices to say they cant?
2. Do you believe that "separate but equal" is possible in marriage or in any form of separation?
No. I don’t think anything can be separate but equal, that’s like saying you all are invited to my party but can’t come in because all the shoes take up alot of space. I don’t see how they could find an equivalent to marriage that was separate but equal- because it’s marriage the same thing a man and woman would want but between two partners that feel the same as any engaged couple would feel.
3. Do you think that the government should allow gay marriage, ban it, or it is too early to act on this hot issue?
I think the government should allow gay marriage because it is just a different viewpoint of life, like racism for example. Many years ago a majority of people of people were racist until people kind of got a snap of reality. Like this, people just haven’t realized it’s nothing different than every other relationship on the planet even if it is same sex couples.
Explain your opinion and be sure to reference the article specifically. Thanks.
I think that gay couples have all the same right to get married as any other couple. In the article it says the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman has “stood the test of time” which I think is stupid because obviously it hasn’t. Humans are always going to do the unthinkable, outrageous and unexpected.. it’s part of human nature.
I think that it does violate the equal protection clause because even if they're gay, they are still people and should still be able to have equal rights. I think that “separate but equal” is not possible with marriage. In marriage, both are equal. Neither are separate. I think the government should allow gay marriage, but I also think it may be too early to act on this issue. The article stated that Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger said that “The definition of marriage as one man and one woman has stood the test of time”. Just because that's the tradition doesn't mean we can't change it and give gay couples equal rights as straight couples. I honestly do not think it would hurt anyone to allow gay people to marry.
I believe that marriage is an institution performed by the church. The government should not be able to say who the church must marry. However gays should be able to get the same rights as married couples would have. Separate but equal is not possible in any separation because you are splitting people up based on their differences right from the beginning. By say someone is different but equal to you,you are just point out that that person is different. It does violate the 14th amendment by not allowing them to be married. They should have the same rights as straight people. The government should find a way to give gays the same rights without interfering with the church.
I think that it does violate the 14th amendment rights. I dont believe that seperate but equal is an effective arguement because i dont think it should be that big of a deal. I think gay marriage should be allowed because it wouldnt really cause any damage to society.It might not be best to make it legal right now when people are argueing over it so much but eventually i think a law will be passed making gay marriage legal.
I don't think the government should ban gay marriage. They are also human beings they should have every right straight people have.I think a person should be able to marry who ever they feel their in love with. I don't understand why anyone would be offended or think a law is being broken. They aren't hurting anyone. You marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with and if their someone of the same sex then so what!. By not giving them this right the government cant say were separate but equal and it violates the 14 amendment.By banning gay marriage they would binding the constitutional rights of gay people. Who determines whether or not this is an issue to make an unconstitutional law.
1. Does it violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment for straights to have the right to marry but not gays?
2. Do you believe that "separate but equal" is possible in marriage or in any form of separation?
3. Do you think that the government should allow gay marriage, ban it, or it is too early to act on this hot issue?
I don't think it violates the equal protection clause to have marriage be between a man and a woman. The equal protection clause gives equal rights to everyone. Just because marriage is between a man and woman doesn't mean it discriminates. It's a right that not everybody uses. Some people don't believe in the use of guns, but they still have the right to bear arms. Homosexuals don't believe in marrying the opposite sex, but they still have the right to. "Separate but Equal" doesn't seem to work, but I don't think it's applicable to this case. Marriage and Domestic Partnerships are two different things, and should be treated differently. I think they should ban gay marriage, mainly because the article mentions the public voting on it. If this really was a democracy the government would respect the people's decision instead of debating it in court.
Yes I believe that for you to say under the law that gay people cannot get married but straight people can is violating the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment states that everyone deserves equal protection under the law. If they government treats a group of people differently based on their sexual orientation then they have violated their 14th amendment rights. In this article Krueger states “These are separate institutions... There is equality.” I strongly disagree with this statement. In our society the institution of marriage is very important and unless you given the right to marry they are not equal. If you take a look at Plessy v. Ferguson it is evident that the idea of separate but equal doesn't work. I don't see the difference between race and sexual orientation. How can we say that it is unlawful to deny rights based on race but it is okay if its based on sexual orientation? While I think that at this point in time the issue of gay marriage has two extremely different sides and nothing will get solved immediately. My personal opinion is that we should legalize gay marriage and give them the same rights as a man and a woman would receive. I think its clear that the ban is limiting their constitutional rights and its time for our society to recognize and accept others that are different than most of us.
This is Haley Winckler...
I think that it does violate the equal protection clause because, if we discriminate against sexuality it is just as bad as being racist. The gay people in America just want equal rights, like other married couples. This is not as severe as the discrimination in U.S. past, but what is so bad about letting two people of the same sex get married?
I think that the “separate but equal” is not possible in marriage. Our country always talks about trying to be equal, and yet we discriminate against people who can not control what they are. The statement “Separate but Equal” sort of contradicts itself. If you separate people then how are you making them equal?
I think that the government should allow gay marriage. These are two people that love each other and want to be together, and we are preventing them from living the life that they want. The gays don't have a recruiting station and so what is everyone so fired up? If they are not attempting to get to make other people like them then there should be no problem with letting them get married. One of the only states right now, according to the article, that allows gay marriage is Massachusetts. These people seem very nice and respect others. This should not be a problem.
1. No, I don't think that gay/lesbian marriage violates the thirteenth amendment on equal protection clause because you should have the freedom to marry who ever you love. No one should be able to tell you that you cant marry the same sex, its your own decision and your own life.
2. Yes I do believe that the "separate but equal" is possible in marriage because you need to be equal with everyone and treat them the same even if they like the same sex.
3. I believe that the government should allow the gay/lesbian marriage because you are suppose to have the right to freedom of alot of stuff so I don't think that it's fair to reject people who like the same sex as them. Everyone makes there own decision to marry who they want, and everyone lives there own life, I personally don't think it's the government's decision to decide who you love and want to marry. Actually I don't think it's any of there buissness what anyone does. It's not there decision!
1. No, I don't think that gay/lesbian marriage violates the thirteenth amendment on equal protection clause because you should have the freedom to marry who ever you love. No one should be able to tell you that you cant marry the same sex, its your own decision and your own life.
2. Yes I do believe that the "separate but equal" is possible in marriage because you need to be equal with everyone and treat them the same even if they like the same sex.
3. I believe that the government should allow the gay/lesbian marriage because you are suppose to have the right to freedom of alot of stuff so I don't think that it's fair to reject people who like the same sex as them. Everyone makes there own decision to marry who they want, and everyone lives there own life, I personally don't think it's the government's decision to decide who you love and want to marry. Actually I don't think it's any of there buissness what anyone does. It's not there decision!
1. No, I don't think that gay/lesbian marriage violates the thirteenth amendment on equal protection clause because you should have the freedom to marry who ever you love. No one should be able to tell you that you cant marry the same sex, its your own decision and your own life.
2. Yes I do believe that the "separate but equal" is possible in marriage because you need to be equal with everyone and treat them the same even if they like the same sex.
3. I believe that the government should allow the gay/lesbian marriage because you are suppose to have the right to freedom of alot of stuff so I don't think that it's fair to reject people who like the same sex as them. Everyone makes there own decision to marry who they want, and everyone lives there own life, I personally don't think it's the government's decision to decide who you love and want to marry. Actually I don't think it's any of there buissness what anyone does. It's not there decision!
to sam
I disagree with you. I think that they have all the rights of any other person on the planet to get married, and even if they still can't legally get a marriage, they are still going to be in love and feel the same way about each other as they always did.
to sam
I disagree with you. I think that they have all the rights of any other person on the planet to get married, and even if they still can't legally get a marriage, they are still going to be in love and feel the same way about each other as they always did.
1. No, I don't think that gay/lesbian marriage violates the thirteenth amendment on equal protection clause because you should have the freedom to marry who ever you love. No one should be able to tell you that you cant marry the same sex, its your own decision and your own life.
2. Yes I do believe that the "separate but equal" is possible in marriage because you need to be equal with everyone and treat them the same even if they like the same sex.
3. I believe that the government should allow the gay/lesbian marriage because you are suppose to have the right to freedom of alot of stuff so I don't think that it's fair to reject people who like the same sex as them. Everyone makes there own decision to marry who they want, and everyone lives there own life, I personally don't think it's the government's decision to decide who you love and want to marry. Actually I don't think it's any of there buissness what anyone does. It's not there decision!
1. Yeah it does violate the equal protection clause. The government is not giving everyone the same right.
2. No, separate rights for different groups because of their way of life is not equal as long as the groups are not committing any crimes.
3. It should be allowed. I see no problem with it, a persons sexual orientation makes them no less of a person. Gays deserve all of the same rights that non gays have. To me this is just like banning interracial marriage. A persons skin color, or sexual orientation should not determine the rights that they receive.
It is absolutely disgusting to use the Plessy v. Furgeson "Seperate but Equal" doctrine in this case. It would be a horrible crime to reinstate an awful doctrine that has been gone for almost 50 years. Things that are different are inherently unequal. Therefore, homosexual couples should be allowed the same rights as heterosexual couples. Some people argue that the bible disagrees with homosexual conduct. They would be hard-pressed, though, to find the single verse in the single book in the entire bible that even mentions it. While many churches have not allowed homosexual unions in their parishes, some have stood behind gay members of their community. Also, the right to marriage, while not mentioned in the 14th amendment, is implied in this case. No matter what your beliefs on this issue are, you can not deny the fact that couples are being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. For this reason alone, the gay marriage ban should be struck down.
I agree with Jackie, that by using "Separate but Equal" we are just pointing out differences in people. I also agree that we should find a way to give gay people the same rights as any other person, but also attempt to not interfere too much with the church.
I strongly disagree with Wiseman when he said "I think the government should consider banning gay marriage. I believe the whole idea of being gay is unorthodox, and children don't need to be exposed to that type of behavior". With all three of these outrageous statements, I completely disagree. First of all, everyone should have the right to marry, nowhere does it say that you lose this right once you "come out of the closet". Second of all, I would not consider being gay
unorthodox, because as long as there have been "straight" people, there have been gay people. In Ancient Islam, men were known to have homosexual relationships because the women were forced to stay at home and were unable to leave their home without a male family member, thus encouraging intimate male relationships within the public eye. Last of all, if anything children SHOULD be exposed to this type of "behavior", as you call it. Children need to grow up with an entirely open perspective on life, these are the kind of children we need to be raising, not the type that are going to judge anyone and everyone they meet.
I believe this does violate the equal protection clause. Marriage should be open to people of all gender and sexual orientation. To say a man can marry somebody with the genes XX but not XY is not my idea of a free country. Not only is this discrimination towards sexual orientation but an estranging of the institution of marriage itself. The biggest threat to marriage isn't about who is getting married, it's about who isn't allowed to be married.
I do not believe seperate but equal applies to marriages. The reason being is that "domestic partners" do not have all the rights that "married couples" do. For instance, if a man is injured in a car accident and a medical decision needs to be made on his behalf, a "wife" does not need to provide any legal document showing that she is the wife and can make the decision. However, in a domestic partnership, the gay spouse would need to go home and provide some sort of legal document showing that he or she is able to legally make that decision.
The government should definately allow gay marriage. The article asks "What is so special about marriage?" If gay couples supposedly have ALL the same rights as straight ones in a partnership why can't they legally be recognized as married? To deny somebody that spiritual and emotional title by only giving them legal unions is a terrible thing to do. A ban on gay marriage tramples over civil rights and narrows the amount of marriages taking place in this country.
to Kenny
I disagree with your statement that churches should be able to define marriage. What many people here don't seem to understand is that marriage is NOT a religious institution. Even if you are married by your minister to your opposite-sex sweetheart, the marriage would not be legal, because you did not obtain a marrigage license from the government. How do you think people that don't believe in God get married? A judge performs the ceremony. This has nothing to do with church. Homosexual people are arguing for the equal protection of the law that straight couples have.
And to Cort
In your post you said that "Homosexuals don't believe in marrying the opposite sex, but they still have the right to." This is untrue! Homosexuals are not trying to deny the right of straight couples to marry, they are trying to get the same rights for themselves.
I disagree with Sam saying that gay marriage breaks tradition. The biggest threats to the tradition of marriage are DIVORCE and banning people from being married, not allowing a man and a man or a woman and a woman from being married. I also disagree with Cort when he brings up that marriage is between a man and a woman. This seems to be the only arguement being brought up against gay marriage and it is not a very good one. If those against gay marriage were really concerned about the sanctity and tradition of marriage, they should focus on things that actually threaten that institution. Massachusetts, a state that allows gay marriage, has the second LOWEST divorce rate in the country topped only by the District of Colombia.
The 14th amendment does say that everyone is equal, but it was written at a time where that statement was regarding white people and African American people. I do believe that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else except the right to marry. I think this because a lot of people are very religious and would become upset if this were to happen. Marriage is often considered something that bonds a man and a woman together. It would only bring more controversy to the people who feel strongly about this if gay people were allowed to get married. I have nothing against gay people at all I just believe that they can do whatever they want on their own, but if they were allowed to get married it would only bring more controversy to this already hot topic.
The 14th amendment was written to give everybody equal rights. When this was written, it was directed towards the issue of segregation and I can see how it was needed then. I believe that gays should have all of the same rights as straight people except the right to marry. I think that this adds a lot of frustration to the people that are very religious. In the article it says, “The definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman has stood the test of time.” I don't think that this tradition should be changed all of a sudden. I don't have anything against gay people I just don't think that they need to be married. They can do all they want behind closed doors but it isn't necessary for them to get married.
I agree with Mason because gay marriage is a really big topic with very extreme sides to it. I also think that gay people should be able to marry people of the same sex. I also think that it does violate the 14th amendment because I think everyone, whether they are gay or not should be treated equally.
I agree with Sam Jones when he says "It would change tradition if you allow gays to be married and a lot of people might not like their traditions to be changed." If this did happen a lot of people would be angry and it would change the tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman. I think that gays can have all of the equal rights as straight couples except the right to marry.
I do think it violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to not allow gays to marry. I don't think this has anything to do with "separate but equal" it really is a yes or no in terms of legal rights. I think the states should be able to decide for themselves, at least for now. The article talks about a voter-approved ban so for states like California where this is a hot issue, that would be the best solution, let the voters decide.
I disagree with smundstock. Sure, traditions can be changed. But you shouldn't do it lightly. Society views the "traditional family" as a man and a woman raising their own children, there is no arguing that. Also, marriage between a man and woman stabalizes the future existence of society more than homosexual marriages do. It can't be pretended that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are the exact same thing. So the question that needs to be answered before it is said that it violates same-sex couples' rights is whether marriage should remain between a man and a woman. The answer is it should. I'm not saying domestic partnerships and rights to same sex couples should be changed, i'm just saying that it's not worth breaking such a long tradition over merely the title of marriage. Also, opposite-sex couples are arguably more important to the continuation and stability of society than same-sex couples. That can't be forgotten
And Ryan, when I said "Homosexuals don't believe in marrying the opposite sex, but they still have the right to." I meant their views concerning their own life, not their views concerning others. I thought that was clear, mai bad
I disagree with Wiseman's opinion on gay rights. I don't mean to be rude by saying this but I think that blog was very offensive. No matter what your reasoning is for being against gay rights, whether it is religious of other, it comes down to the root of the issue: basic human rights. It is the right of every American citizen to exercise his rights. The doctrine "separate but equal" was overturned because it is illogical to say that we are treating people separately and equally at the same time. I don’t think that the gay people that are seeking the right to marriage are trying to “further prove to everyone else that they are different.” It is actually just the opposite! They are trying to be treated the same as everyone else. If you think that it is toxic for children to be exposed to homosexuality what about violent video games and scary movies? Also, as I have come to learn it doesn’t specifically say in the bible that gay marriage is a sin. I know that it is Catholic tradition for marriage to be between a man and a woman. I also know that it will take a long time for the church to be strayed away from that view. I hope that the traditional views that seem to be set in stone are able to eventually catch up to this century. I found your blog highly controversial within itself and it didn’t lack any evidence. Of course you are entitled to your opinion as well as I have the right to criticize it.
I believe that it does violate the 14th amendment because everyone is a person, and whether or not they're attracted to the opposite sex shouldn't decide if they get to get married or not. Marriage is just a legal ceremony, and it doesn't need to be done religiously.
I don't think that separate but equal is possible in a marriage. If two things are separate, then they are not similar and cannot possibly be equal. However, an example of "separate but equal" would be all-girls or all-boys colleges. They are equal in the education level, they're just separated by gender. This is also a choice by the student and so if they didn't agree that the two schools were equal, then they would transfer.
I think that the government should allow gay marriage, but it might be a little too early to make it a national law. There are so many people split on the issue that to make it a national law would end up in countless protests and anti-gay marriage groups. However, I do think that based off the article, California is ready to make gay-marriages legal. They already have domestic partnerships and there's cases being brought to court for same-sex couples to get married. There's not a whole lot against gay marriages at this point, in California.
I disagree with Sam. Although the tradition of marriage has been between one man and one woman for a long time, so many other traditions have been broken because today's world is changing. For example, slavery and racism has been outlawed, the freedom of speech has been tested so many different ways that it has become hard to truly violate it. The definition of murder has transformed into degrees of pre-meditation, and if it was intentional or not. Gay marriage is an issue that I believe will end up becoming legal because the U.S. is becoming smarter and testing the limits of the Constitution. The U.S. government stands so strong behind the original constitution that they keep analyzing it and find new ways to interpret it. Traditions all started as something new, and they always end at some point.
I removed Wiseman's longer comment. I got several complaints from students. I agree that it was not very sensitive. It is important to voice your opinion in a way that encourages dialogue. This post did not.
In response to Jenny's response post, i agree with her. She makes a great point when she says that traditions change all the time in America. A goal of American society is to change things for the better. So if changing things to make them better breaks tradition I believe we should do it. She also makes a great point when she says people are scared of change. How can one determine what society would be like if gay marriage was allowed. It is something that people shouldn't be afraid of and it is something that you can avoid if you don't want to be a part of it. Overall i agree with Jenny on this topic.
To Sam
I disagree with you saying that gay marriage breaks tradition. If that breaks tradition, then tradition was broken when we ended slavery, and when women became able to vote, etc. If they are law abiding, American citizens, then they should have all of the same rights as non-gays.
I disagree with Cort. The right to marriage should be granted to everyone. Nowhere in the constitution does it specifically state that marriage is between a man and a woman. Also, Cort says that people have voted that they don't want gay marriage to be legal. I don't think that other people should have the say in what happens in the intimate lives of others. Before the 60's the majority of parts of the south may have voted against voting rights for blacks, but that doesn't mean that African Americans shouldn't have their voting rights. I also disagree with Emily, so what if it bothers people that are religious, they aren't the ones that are getting married and no one is forcing marriage upon them. Their religion should not influence the ideals of others. Also, marriage between a man and a woman has never been defined in the constitution, and the fact that gays can't get married is discrimination by itself because it is telling them that they are somewhat lesser and they don't have the same privileges as those that are straight. I disagree with Cort, disagreeing with smundstock. There is no reason that homosexual couples allow society to continue less than heterosexual couples. Children can be raised just as well, and it actually opens kids up to more of a diverse opinion. Furthermore, homosexual couples can adopt or get sperm donations so they can raise children in the same manner as straight couples. I also agree with Meghan disagreeing with Wiseman. Being homosexual is not unorthodox, there have been homosexuals since the beginning of time and it is not a conscious choice that people make. We all know from highschool, as Jenny said in class, that we have no control over who we have feelings for. It is the same for homosexuals, they love who they love and that is the most important thing when marriage is being considered.
I think the same way melanie does on this topic, their rights are violated. You can have less privileges and still be considered equal.
I agree with jenny and dont think that someone should be discriminated against due to their sexual preference.I dont think that "seperate but equal" is an effective idea for this topic.
Post a Comment