Gay Marriage Must Be Legal

In this essay, the author

• Opines that legal marriage is the right of all americans regardless of their sexual orientation. gay marriage invokes an emotional dialogue filled with passion, rage, hate and fear.
• Explains that gay people want to formalize their relationship and gain some of the legal standing and support that is given to heterosexual couples on a daily basis.
• Explains that colorado voters approved amendment 2 to the state constitution by a narrow margin (54% to 47%). it would have prohibited all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government.
• Explains that the us supreme court overturned colorado’s amendment 2. the majority opinion issued by justice kennedy concluded that homosexuals could obtain civil rights protection under colorado law if enough citizens voted to amend the state constitution.
• Argues that justice andrews' decision to deny gay people the right to marry is unconstitutional in and of itself.
• Argues that gay marriage has been in existence for 20 years in denmark and for a decade in the netherlands, and austria, belgium and spain have all legalized same-sex marriage.
• Analyzes scott bidstrup's article about gay marriage and the fundamental flows in the argument against it.
• Explains that in 1989, the majority of clergy were opposed to legalizing gay marriage in denmark. now, after seeing the benefits to the partners and to society, they are overwhelmingly in favor.
• Compares the traits of heterosexual couples with those of gay couples in committed relationships. they love one another and go about their daily lives in a way that is valuable to their communities and neighborhoods.
• Argues that gay relationships do nothing to disenfranchise or diminish traditional marriage, as opponents will claim. this is a scare tactic, used by opponents to create fear or the unknown.
• Argues that citing the inherent value of tradition, or preserving an existing institution, is another weak argument. slavery was also a long-standing traditional institution based on years and years of practice.
• Explains that the rights of women have slowly evolved in the united states, often on a state-by-state basis. these changes in racial and gender attitudes came about only after long social justice struggles.
• Explains how the institution of marriage has gone through many legal changes, from traditional marriage to the way it is thought of today.
• Argues that homosexual marriage is for procreation and gay people can't self-promulgate. heterosexual marriage does not mandate a requirement to procreate.
• Opines that promotion of homosexuality would not change anything, since people aren't gay because they're "recruited," but gays were born that way. promoting love, commitment, sharing, and commonality of values and goals would undermine western civilization.
• Explains that religious objections are not valid, as the laws in this country clearly support a separation of church and state. the changes requested are for legal purposes only and in no way interfere with religious teachings or mandates.
• Argues that gay people must deal with the same insecurities as heterosexuals who live together without the benefits of marriage.
• Concludes that the opposition to gay marriage stems from a deep-seated homophobia in american culture, borne almost entirely out of religious prejudice.
• Argues that giving gay people the right to marry is about allowing two people to join in a legally binding contract that supports their love and commitment to one another.
• Analyzes how a blue-ribbon state government commission tells governor corzine and the legislature: it's time to enact marriage equality.
• Summarizes stoddard, fein, and smith's article, "romer v. evans."