Should Gay Marriage Legalized?

Should Gay Marriage Legalized?

Andrew Sullivan, a former editor of the New Republic, a practicing Catholic and a pioneer writer on gay rights. He presents an argument in favor or supporting legalization of gay marriage. His stance is a common one in our society today but seems to only deal with the lawful side of gay marriage and not the moral side. The plain truth is the people of America are not ready to accept gay marriages. He states that it is not fair for people who do not fit the category of heterosexual marriage to not be entitled to benefits that have previously been reserved for straight married couples. He suggests that marriage provides a mechanism for emotional stability, economic security and healthy rearing of the next generation. A judge in New York ruled that a gay lover is part of his lover's family. "Family," defined as an interwoven social life, emotional commitment, and a certain level of financial interdependence. Gay marriage allows for recognition of their relationships and asks for gay marriage to be allowed and accepted. Gays have a desire to belong and fit into society.

"Domestic partnership laws allow relationships that do not fit into the category of heterosexual marriage to be registered with the city and qualify for benefits that have up till now have been reserved for straight married couples." With this law it not only benefits gays but heterosexual live together's would also qualify. "The current legal advantages extended to married people unfairly discriminate against people who have shaped their lives in less conventional arrangements. People do not need to have sexual relationship to show their commitment to each other. This concept of domestic partnership has opened a Pandora's Box about who qualifies as a domestic partnership. The issue is black and white, either your married or your not. It is not a complex question. The fact the domestic partnership laws have been produced to give unconventional couples the rights that married couples have is a big step for America.

Sullivan argues that these laws require unconventional couples to follow a different set of guidelines. The new guidelines are more demanding then the laws set up for married couples are and this is what Sullivan has a problem with. When situations arise and call for new laws to be made they are obviously not going to be like any other laws already written. Though this domestic partnership law is more demanding then marriage laws this is only to benefit society. Gay marriages and straight marriages will never be considered similar for obvious reasons. It seems that this domestic partnership law is a very fair compromise to gay marriage. People in society are not ready for gay marriage to be legalized. The majority of people feel this way and in our society the majority still has a lot of pull.

Gay rights activists made a lot of progress when they achieved a "don't ask don't tell policy" for the armed forces but the fact that we don't want to know if you a person is gay gives evidence to the fact that we do not accept this type of lifestyle. Allowing same sex marriages would only tell homosexuals that their union compares to a union between a man and a woman and most people do not agree that this is true. Another reason why many people do not look favorably on the legalization of gay marriage is simply because it is not considered morally right. People in our society have certain morals and the gay lifestyle does not conform to most views on sexuality. Many of the ideas of marriage and what marriage consists of are based on traditional values and morals. For instance tradition in a marriage always consists of a man and a woman for this is the basic foundation to any marriage. These traditions that people have lived by for so many generations is influenced by society as well as religion. To change people's morals as well as tradition is an almost impossible task. Andrew Sullivan is not looking to preserve (or conserve) the institution of marriage but change its definition. And when you are seeking to change the root definition of a core institution such as marriage, you are a radical, not a conservative. As long as marriage is defined by Webster's dictionary as "to join as husband and wife," "Here Comes the Groom" is not very likely.

Lisa Schiffren, a freelance journalist who writes regularly for a conservative magazine "American Spectator." By denying homosexual couples the right to marry, we are denying them their right to pursue happiness. In the essay entitled "Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron," written by Lisa, For the most part, Schiffner's article, which argues against the legal recognition of gay marriages, seems to be clearly written but upon further analysis there are a few statements and definitions that could be clarified. Probably the strongest point of clarity of her article is the definition of marriage as "...essentially a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring." Throughout the article, she sticks to this definition with vigilance. It is clear that she believes that the purpose of marriage should be to raise children. If the United