Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legalized
As one of the most controversial issues in today's America, the question as to whether or not gay marriage should be legalized nationwide continues to occupy the headlines of major newspapers and magazines and has created virtually two warring camps, one that advocates the legalization of gay marriage and the other which stands vehemently against it. Despite all of the liberal news coverage and the recent onslaught of best-selling books about this subject and the evidence for and against it as a social institution, gay marriage should not be legalized for three specific reasons-first, gay marriage places children at risk, especially those that are born into or adopted by gay parents; second, offering domestic partnership benefits would cause undue expenses for employers and the U.S. government, and third, gay marriage has the potential to undermine the traditional institution of marriage between one man and one woman, an institution that serves as the foundation for American society. One of the most basic arguments against gay marriage is related to the role of children in such unions. Legalizing gay marriage, as Peter Sprigg points out, "would of course logically lead to granting homosexual unions adoptive and parenting rights
and the implications of this are dire indeed" (156). Conversely, some studies have suggested that there appears to be no solid difference between children raised in a stable homosexual home and those raised in a traditional heterosexual home, yet in truth, there are a number of problems with the potential to severely affect the children brought up in such environments. Finally, gay marriage has the potential to seriously undermine the traditional institution of marriage which, since the founding of America by such men as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton following the American Revolution, has served as the basis for all of American society and has made it possible to spread democracy and American ideals. In May of 1996, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3396, "To Define and Protect the Institution of Marriage," aimed at insuring that "legal same-sex marriages in Hawaii could not be upheld in other states under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution" (Mello, 214). In conclusion, the best voice in America today which speaks out against gay marriage is none other than President George W. Bush. On February 24, 2004, President Bush announced to the American public exactly how he felt about this very controversial topic. First, Bush pointed out the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage, for purposes of federal law, as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Second, Bush related that some judges and local authorities "are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," namely, the institution of marriage, and that action is required in order to prevent "serious consequences throughout the country." There are numerous arguments against gay marriage set forth by politicians, media leaders, political groups, judges and psychologists, mostly members of what is currently called the "conservative right." For example, a senator from Wisconsin was quoted as saying that marriage between gay/lesbian couples must be forbidden, due to going against natural instincts; a lawmaker from Georgia recently opined that allowing gay people to marry "involves the degradation of conventional marriage which deserves admiration and support from all traditional Americans;" a congressman from Illinois declared that bans against gay marriage are not unconstitutional because they "apply equally to all men and women;" a lawyer for the state of California even went so far as to say that preventing gay marriage is necessary in order to prevent "traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are inferior to traditional unions" (Roleff, 245). In 2003, the citizens of California voted in favor of the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act which gave "gay and lesbian Californians a
Some common words found in the essay are:
Peter Sprigg, House Representatives, , Educational Fund, Finally Bush, Marriage Act, Responsibilities Act, President Bush, David Orland, gay marriage, Marriage Questia, institution marriage, traditional heterosexual, husband wife, domestic partnership benefits, domestic partnership, partnership benefits, union woman, children raised, children brought, heterosexual couples, woman husband wife, traditional institution marriage, union woman husband, arguments gay marriage,
Approximate Word count = 1913
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
