Over the course of American history, marriage has evolved from the traditional, Christian ideology of marriage into accepting civil unions and civil partnerships. America was founded on the principles of Christianity and Puritan ideals. For example, our forefathers came to America to seek religious toleration, in land not yet claimed by the European world. The American government was supposed to be established sans religious virtues and values, giving the people the ability to dictate their religious values; nonetheless, over the last 300 years, the idea of marriage in the eyes of the average American has gradually changed from social union to carrying a religious and social connotation.
Marriage has been the social agreement that has provided organization and meaning to people’s lives. Throughout most of America’s history, religion has influenced most of its laws and policies. Even though, religion and state are constitutionally separate, politicians still tend to use religious influence to make policies and laws. For example, issues on abortion and the death penalty debates have been influenced by religious institutions. According to religious connotations, marriage is defined as the socially legalized union between heterosexual couples, comprised of a man and a woman, which in the future will procreate and raise a family. In addition, the president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said, “marriage is based on the fact that all human beings from conception have, in every cell of their bodies, whether XX (female) or XY (male), even a sex-change operation and hormone treatments cannot change those chromosomes (Jost 2003).
Because religion is engraved into American society, many Americans consider marriage a social norm; s...
... middle of paper ...
...entitled to their spouse’s medical, financial, and other benefits if the couple should so decide that they should share these benefits.
Overall, though the word ‘marriage’ carries religious connotation, we do not believe that rights should be denied to homosexual couples. By changing the word ‘marriage’ on marriage licenses to ‘civil union,’ everyone is able to attain the same rights legally and socially. We feel that no rights should be denied to homosexual couples looking to have their relationship civilly recognized; by leveling the playing field, and not considering the two kinds of relationships as ‘separate, but equal,’ no couple is denied rights. By allowing individuals and institutions to recognize the word ‘marriage,’ and not the state, this removes religion from the Californian Constitution, and places it back in the hands of the citizens of California.
Throughout the recent history of America, gay marriage has always been an issue. With the different views and morals everyone has on the subject, it makes it hard for individual states to determine what side they should be on. In 1983 a Harvard Law School student, Evan Wolfson, wrote a thesis stating the rule of marriage equality. Justices concluded that gay couples were entitled to the legal benefits of civil marriage; and most crucially in the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, whose favorable ruling, in a suit by lawyer Mary Bonauto and the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocated and Defenders, led to the nation’s first bona fide same-sex marriages…” (“Gay Marriage turns 10 and Credit Should Be Spread around- The Boston Globe). On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriages. In June of 2013, California legalized gay marriages, which helped their large LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) community. (“History and Timeline of the Freedom…”). When this finally happened, it was seen as a great achievement by Karmala Harris, a California Attorney. “This is a profound day in our country, and its just the right thing: ‘Justice is finally being served’” (“Court Gives OK for California Gay Marriages”).
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases it is except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
The culture that exists in America is one that is constantly changing to suit the times and the many different types of people that reside in the country. One aspect of American culture that has changed profoundly is the institution of marriage. Marriage began as the undisputed lifestyle for couples willing to make the ultimate commitment to one another. However in less than a century, pointless and destructive alternatives such as premarital cohabitation, have developed to replace marriage.
Marriage, as an institution, has evolved in the last few decades. As society progresses, the ideas and attitudes about marriage have shifted. Today, individuals are able to choose their partners and are more likely marry for love than convenience. While individuals are guaranteed the right to marry and the freedom to choose their own partners, it has not always been this way. Starting from colonial times up until the late 1960’s, the law in several states prohibited interracial marriages and unions. Fortunately, in 1967, a landmark case deemed such laws as unconstitutional. Currently, as society progresses, racism and social prejudice have decreased and interracial marriages have become, not only legal, but also widely accepted.
Marriage is the legal or formally recognized union of a man and a woman, or two people or the same sex as partners in a relationship. Marriage rates in the United States have changed drastically since the last 90’s and early 2000 years (Cherlin 2004). Marital decline perspective and marital resilience perspective are the two primary perspectives and which we believe are the results from the decline. The marital decline perspective is the view that the American culture has become increasingly individualistic and preoccupied with personal happiness (Amato, 2004). The change in attitudes has changed the meaning of marriage as a whole, from a formal institution
In his article “Sacred Rite or Civil Right?” Howard Moody tackles the controversial issue of the definition of marriage and inclusion of same-sex marriage into that definition. The real issue that takes center stage is the not so clear separation between the church and the state. Moody, an ordained Baptist minister, shares his belief that it’s only a matter of time that civil law is once again redefined and homosexual marriage is recognized just as much as heterosexual marriage. The gay marriage debate he suggests isn’t focused on the relationship between such couples and is more about how to define such unions as a “marriage”. (353)
Stephanie Coontz, author of The Evolution of Matrimony: The Changing Social Context of Marriage, writes that there has been more changes in marriage in the past 30 years then there was in the 3,000 years earlier. With these changes there are no religious or cultural exclusions. Coontz claims, “Right here is America’s Bible belt exist some of the highest rates of divorce and unwed motherhood in the country, and born again Christians d...
Sixty years from now, the American people will look back on the 21st century and be appalled at how the people from today allowed their government to make it illegal for certain couples to get married, just as the people of today are disgusted with the ban on marriage between interracial couples before 1967. Being so advanced technologically, it is surprising how America is still so behind on the issue of same-sex marriage. The United States should push aside the religious argument in this debate, and truly separate its church and state as it claims to do so. From its slow beginning to the rapid increase of support in the 70’s, homosexual marriage has been a controversial debate that hopefully will end in the near future.
The Society Religion as a Social Glue The view in the title is a functionalist’s view. Durkheim claims that religion is to do with the sacred and certain things, people and places are perceived to be sacred for example Jesus Christ, totem and the Tajmahal. He claims that what people perceive to be sacred are actually symbols of a collective consciousness. By worshipping these sacred things etc. they are actually reinforcing the beliefs, values, norms and tradition which make social life possible.
In this study, researchers wanted to know young adults’ views of marriage in the United States. In order to do so, they asked simple questions about marriage and commitment to 424 people ages 21 to 38 from various socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. The results showed that there are two major types of marital constructs, and two major arguments in the debate of marriage’s current state. The two categories of people who think of marriage are called the marriage naturalists and the marriage planners. Both groups of people have nearly opposite views on the idea of what is needed to be able to have a good, healthy marriage. The major arguments about the current state of marriage in the U.S are the marriage decline and the marriage resilience perspectives. These are also polarized, naturally.
Over the years, society has come to evolve and progressively become more efficient as society’s viewpoints and perspectives on various aspects of life have also changed. However, the one aspect of life that has stayed constant has been religion. The impact of a constant religious opinion on a changing society has detrimental and benign effects on the populace of such a society.
A contradictory essay titled “Societal Suicide” by the authors Anne Morse and Charles Colson conveying that marriage ought to be realized as an old – fashioned and traditional way were people come together in holy matrimony when they said “traditional building block of human society.” Their essay continues to explicate the weary and unfair assumptions of marriage by concluding that there should only be the existence of man and woman relationships. The authors, due to gay couples overloaded with longing to marry one another, have also questioned marriage extinction. A question often asked is “How is it the end of marriage if same-sex couples marry?” Allowing gays to get married indorses marriage as well as supports the rights to care for every person. An...
Over the last years the topic of same-sex marriage has been of great importance to our society. The idea of the same gender being lawfully married is disturbing to a group of people but in the recent years the number of supporters has increased. The cases that argue for the legalization of same-sex marriage are focusing on the relationship of the individuals and do not see anything in same-sex marriage that could harm our society as a whole. The article “How the President go to ‘I Do’ on Same-Sex Marriage,” published by Joe Becker in April 2014, explains how Barack Obama started saying that he was undecided about the subject matter but is now leaning toward the legalization of same-sex marriage. The subject matter takes a lot of analyzing of what pros and cons are to come from the legalization of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a global argument that deals with unifying two individuals of the same gender under the law. The main reason that supporters give for justifying same-sex marriage is that it is for the same reason as straight people, to show love and commitment to each other. Furthermore, the argument of same-sex marriage is difficult to generalize because of the multiple factors that need to be taken in consideration when making any decision regarding this topic. Although Becker does have true premises, he lacks clarity in his terms which make his argument be false and invalid.
The role of religion in politics is a topic that has long been argued, and has contributed to the start of wars, schisms (both political and religious), and other forms of inter and intra-state conflict. This topic, as a result of its checkered past, has become quite controversial, with many different viewpoints. One argument, put forth by many people throughout history, is that religion and the government should remain separate to avoid any conflicting interests. This view also typically suggests that there is one, or several, large and organized religions like the Roman Catholic Church, which would be able to use their “divine” authority to sway the politics of a given state by promising or threatening some form of godly approval or disapproval. By leveraging their divine power, individual figures within a religion, as well as the religion as a whole, could gain secular power for themselves, or over others. A second view, which was developed by many theologians through history, suggests that that without religion there would be a general lack of morality in the people and leaders of a given state, which would give way to poor political decisions that would not be in the interest of the people and perhaps even God (or the gods). This argument, however, does not address the fact that morality can exist without religion. In sociology, it is commonly accepted that social norms, which include morality, can result from any number of things. Religion, laws, or the basic desire of survival can all create these norms, so it suffices to say that as a society, our morals reflect our desire to live in relative peace through the creation of laws that serve to help us to survive. The argument of whether or not religion and politics should mix...
In conclusion I argue that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it denies homosexuals the many benefits received by heterosexual couples. The right to marriage in the United States has little to do with the religious and spiritual meaning of marriage. It has a lot to do with social justice, extending a civil right to a minority group. This is why I argue for same-sex marriage. The freedom to marry regardless of gender preference should be allowed.