MarriageJoin now to read essay MarriageOnly in the states of Vermont and California are gay couples allowed to marry. Same-sex marriage is very important with gay couples and activists in todays society. On January 1, 2002, a bill became effective to give members of registered same-sex and opposite-sex couples the right to adopt a partners child. A reason why the Vermont same-sex union battle received so much nation press is because legislators were responding to a court order, while some ended up losing their jobs to same-sex unions. Religious, government, and social groups have debated this issue and it is taking a long time for it to be resolved. Same-sex marriage has some very distinct facts and values important to ones religion, morals, or even what his or her family thinks of the gay lifestyle.
MADD: You mention that there was at least a year of legal activity before a decision on same-sex marriage was ever finalized. As you put it in the transcript, a decision that was not finalized would be seen as a huge setback to same-sex marriage.
CUNNINGHAM: Well, first of all, I think I’ve got to ask you about what it costs to put forth a ballot initiative.
MADD: I don’t think that’s a big deal that there’s, you know, a constitutional right to an expression of same-sex preference in a state or province to a person and, you know, we will not do that. But in my experience, the state has no, not the federal government, not this country, no one is going to give it a chance.
CUNNINGHAM: I’m sorry. I’m talking about a very old civil rights movement. One of the things that the right to equal rights for civil and political equality has been for a long time is that, you know, this is not some new phenomenon or, you know, no more like it–you know, the idea that you’re being denied that right, that your right is protected by a federal law? And certainly, the only thing we really needed in this situation was an agreement as to what this was going to bring to the table. At the moment, we’re fighting a different civil rights story in Vermont and California and we’re fighting a national story in Vermont, you know, you know – I mean, we’re fighting for equal rights for lesbians and gay men there. You know, there we are now in this same-sex marriage and that’s what it’s all about. We’re fighting for equal rights for all Americans, people of all races. I hope that at this point in time – and I do believe that in all likelihood that this is the only place where we’ll be able to have an actual civil marriage. I hope that when we do have an actual marriage in this country, every last American goes to the polls to determine who they think will be their next president. I also hope that this is a step forward, that we find out on this that I was wrong once and I’m okay again, and that I understand who this person is now. I look forward now to doing that.
I think what we can do is we’re looking at this as an opportunity to go after same-sex marriage. But this issue in Vermont here is the next step. One possibility is that we’ll have marriage equality in Vermont. I know that this is a long way off, so it’s time to go after it once and we have that.
CUNNINGHAM: And I understand that you guys have spent far more time this week talking about the next generation of the LGBT movement than you have talking about the generation of the current generation. Why not just talk about the next generation and talk about the next generation?
MADD: Well, let me ask you very straight, first of all, we can talk about the next generation when you take a step back and think, you know, people, really,
MADD: You mention that there was at least a year of legal activity before a decision on same-sex marriage was ever finalized. As you put it in the transcript, a decision that was not finalized would be seen as a huge setback to same-sex marriage.
CUNNINGHAM: Well, first of all, I think I’ve got to ask you about what it costs to put forth a ballot initiative.
MADD: I don’t think that’s a big deal that there’s, you know, a constitutional right to an expression of same-sex preference in a state or province to a person and, you know, we will not do that. But in my experience, the state has no, not the federal government, not this country, no one is going to give it a chance.
CUNNINGHAM: I’m sorry. I’m talking about a very old civil rights movement. One of the things that the right to equal rights for civil and political equality has been for a long time is that, you know, this is not some new phenomenon or, you know, no more like it–you know, the idea that you’re being denied that right, that your right is protected by a federal law? And certainly, the only thing we really needed in this situation was an agreement as to what this was going to bring to the table. At the moment, we’re fighting a different civil rights story in Vermont and California and we’re fighting a national story in Vermont, you know, you know – I mean, we’re fighting for equal rights for lesbians and gay men there. You know, there we are now in this same-sex marriage and that’s what it’s all about. We’re fighting for equal rights for all Americans, people of all races. I hope that at this point in time – and I do believe that in all likelihood that this is the only place where we’ll be able to have an actual civil marriage. I hope that when we do have an actual marriage in this country, every last American goes to the polls to determine who they think will be their next president. I also hope that this is a step forward, that we find out on this that I was wrong once and I’m okay again, and that I understand who this person is now. I look forward now to doing that.
I think what we can do is we’re looking at this as an opportunity to go after same-sex marriage. But this issue in Vermont here is the next step. One possibility is that we’ll have marriage equality in Vermont. I know that this is a long way off, so it’s time to go after it once and we have that.
CUNNINGHAM: And I understand that you guys have spent far more time this week talking about the next generation of the LGBT movement than you have talking about the generation of the current generation. Why not just talk about the next generation and talk about the next generation?
MADD: Well, let me ask you very straight, first of all, we can talk about the next generation when you take a step back and think, you know, people, really,
Many Mormons oppose gay marriage because they believe offends everything religion stands for. Also, making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine and that people fear that gay people might recruit straight people to the gay lifestyle. Many people are in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. “They say that yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accommodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etc” (Bidstrup). Focusing more on this issue can help accelerate the outcome of recognizing same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages should be legalized and recognized because our government guarantees equal rights for all citizens.
The government says that every citizen of the United States shall receive equal rights. But, why did they pass the Defense of Marriage Act? The Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages; in my opinion this act is immoral and unjust because it restricts the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. The authors of Gays, Lesbians, and Family Values, Elizabeth A. Say and mark R. Kowalewski, are distinguished writers on the subject of gays and lesbians. They both are very conservative and believe in religious rights when it comes to sexual preference. “On September 10, 1996, the U.S. Senate passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allows individual states to refrain from recognizing them. President Clinton signed the bill into law on September 21, 1996” (Say and Kowalewski 87). This act should not have been passed because there is no important reason why it should have been passed in the first place. The Defense of Marriage Act has caused many different confrontations with the people who are for and against same-sex marriage laws.
The Defense of Marriage Act emerged as a reply to the current court battles in the state of Hawaii. Three same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the state of Hawaii claiming that current marriage laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying violated the couples right to privacy and equal protection (Say and Kowalewski 87).
Although the case was dismissed, it was held because the law disobeys equal protection. “Even though the case was dismissed in trial court, the Hawaii State Supreme Court held that the case had advantage and should be heard because the current law does disobey equal protection under the states constitution” (Say and Kowalewski 88). The judge of the Hawaii State Supreme Court ruled that the state must issue licenses to the three couples on the grounds of no convincing evidence. “On December 3, 1996, the judge ruled that the state of Hawaii must issue marriage licenses to the three couples because the state had provided no convincing reasons to reject them. The case in now on appeal”(Say and Kowalewski 88). While this was going on, Hawaii passed a law establishing beneficiaries a state certificate qualifying them for many legal rights and benefits usual given to married persons such as insurance benefits through anothers employer.
[…]
While we believe that our state and local government are well served in providing the best quality of life for our seniors, we believe that this legislation is misguided, in its approach to the welfare of the elderly, and it harms the local economy. We do not believe in giving out government contracts as a solution to financial difficulties. But that’s all we’re trying to say. Any state which imposes a licensing requirement in a local market where there is an existing local law on the books to permit local officials, by virtue of the requirement, to use any kind of financial instrument for any reason, should refuse to do so.
The last section of the Act:
(9) The law shall provide that, without regard to any particular circumstances, (a) all persons who are entitled to a license as a result of this fact shall have a valid marriage license (and are entitled to a marriage license for each of those). (b) the law shall provide that (i) the applicants shall be citizens of Hawaii, (ii) if they are born in Hawaii, the spouses shall in no case become citizens of Hawaii; (iii) the law shall provide that those who have been born in Hawaii before the effective date of the law may apply for issuance a state birth certificate if such certificates are issued before the effective date of the law; and (iv) the law shall provide for the issuance of state birth certificates.
Our law will ensure that Hawaiians can enjoy all the advantages of any birth-certificate law that comes soon to state or national notice. We believe we should repeal this law (without having to do the math).
So this is it. This is the law of the land, and you know what will happen if you vote to repeal the old one.
We urge you to read the entire bill before you vote, as we have already discussed that this is a very strong veto; let the voters decide.
We ask that you write a letter to the governor and all lawmakers that you support. Write to Governor Perry, to Senator Paulson, to Representatives Scott, Lee, Halleck, Smith, Wicomico, and Yarnold to sign the letter, and ask Gov. Andrew Cuomo his full support, and to urge him to accept your endorsement.
If Governor Cuomo believes that we have the law in order, he can sign it into law at any time and without prior notice. If you do not, then your veto is nullified.
As the Hawaii Legislative Assembly continues to debate the repeal of the marriage law, it is important that you take this moment to listen to the voice of the people of Kauai and the future of the Hawaii state. You and the people of Kauai know full well how incredibly hard it is to support and stand up for your people when every single one of them are in denial.
Please support #LebanonStronger for the lives and health of your friends, loved ones, and loved ones.
“In the meantime, Hawaii has passed a law that establishes “reciprocal beneficiaries”; for a fee of eight dollars, same-sex couples may receive a state certificate qualifying them for many legal rights and benefits usually set aside for married persons”(Say and Kowalewski 88).
Many conservatives dispute that same-sex couples are arguing for special rights when they search for anti-discrimination laws. If same-sex marriages were recognized, then heterosexual marriages would not benefit from special status. (Say and Kowalewski 88) By this, then the gay couples would receive more attention than the heterosexual couples in the United States.
Many people disagree with legalizing and recognizing same-sex marriages. According to USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll of 1,006 adults conducted on March 15-17, 1996, Nearly 70 percent of