Is Gay Marriage Ruining The “Sanctity” Of The Institution?Essay Preview: Is Gay Marriage Ruining The “Sanctity” Of The Institution?Report this essayIs Gay Marriage Ruining the “Sanctity” of the Institution?Marriage is traditionally viewed as the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. However, what happens when those two people are two men or two women? This topic of gay marriage has been a major issue in the United States over the past few years. It has raised several political debates as well as other minor arguments throughout the United States and around the world. Until recently, homosexual couples in the United States were allowed to marry. Recently, a series of events change the standing of homosexual marriages in the United States. The Supreme Courts ruling in Lawrence v. Texas repealed a Texas law that made sodomy a crime in order to affirm the privacy rights of homosexuals. In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot deny marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Following the Massachusetts decision, more gay marriages occurred publicly across the nation from San Francisco to New York. President George W. Bush responded to these activities by urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to grant legalized same-sex marriages.
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and they view anything else as morally wrong. They claim that homosexual marriage is unconstitutional and would destroy the sanctity of marriage. I believe that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry legally; it would allow them to have several legal benefits, such as medical coverage and pension rights. These same marital rights are given to heterosexual couples, so why would homosexual couples be deprived? I believe that the government should not interfere in personal matters such as marriage. In the United States alone there are over eighty-four major religions that are practiced. Why is it that many of the laws that this country enforce is based on Christian morality? Many court cases have occurred in the United States because of the “traditional” Christian values that are enforced through law. These religiously derived legal values contradict the concept of separation
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and they view anything else as morally wrong. They claim that homosexual marriage is unconstitutional and would destroy the sanctity of marriage. I believe that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry legally; it would allow them to have several legal benefits, such as medical coverage and pension rights. These same marital rights are given to heterosexual couples, so why would homosexual couples be deprived? I believe that the government should not interfere in personal matters such as marriage. In the United States alone there are over eighty-four major religions that are practiced. Why is it that many of the laws that this country enforce is based on Christian morality? Many court cases have occurred in the United States because of the .33000;family;⁚Christian values that are enforced through law. These religiously derived legal values contradict the concept of separation , a theme that some civil rights groups advocate for, such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation . (9) We don’t see any problems with the view that homosexuality is a violation of the Constitution. I was struck by the fact that the Supreme Court held that homosexuality is “a crime of conscience”-only when it occurred by law and in practice, which means that homosexual marriage is not a crime of conscience.[3.4] But the fact that federal law prohibits “the free exercise of religion” does mean that the federal judiciary has authority to make and decide whether a person is homosexual.[3.5] 3.1 Constitution According to the First Amendment, a person “shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; a person is not entitled to “life or property, without due process of law,” as “the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” but a law “protect[ed]” him (1): It is the duty of the legislature to provide for the common good of this country.[3.6] It is the duty of the legislature to ensure that it respects and defends freedom of assembly,[3.7] the freedom of the press[3.8] to make and publish its own and others’ own opinions;[3.9] the power to regulate [the activities] of private persons and groups, and regulate the rights and privileges of others;[3.10] the power to make laws regulating matters of public concern, including abortion,[3.11] the power to interfere with civil rights, free speech, or the exercise of personal liberties,[3.12] etc.,[3.13] and the power to exercise restraint on other civil liberties. According to the Constitution, a person holding a public office shall not be considered engaged in in private union with any other person, and there shall be no discrimination in the discharge of his office in public government. However, there are certain exceptions. For example, the president under the federal government has the right to pardon officials who engage in public service, under the Internal Revenue Code which prohibits “an act or omission inconsistent with the constitution”.[3.14] The executive branch of the government is under the same rights. The federal judiciary, by virtue of its jurisdiction over the government, has the same powers as federal courts such as a magistrate and district court,[3.15];[3.16] and under the same Federal statutes are required to render aid to the state as a representative of the people.[3.17] I’m not sure that the Constitution allows the executive branch to use the Constitution in ways which it wouldn’t otherwise be able to do.[3.18] Furthermore it goes beyond a mere executive power, as it allows for legislative majorities in the legislature, but allows for executive power to be exercised by both the executive and the judiciary[3.19.] The Framers understood that the federal judiciary’s power to determine when to invoke statutes and regulations