Love_Is_Love

Love is Love Jovanna Parker PHI 103 Informal Logic Naomi Sanderovsky May 6, 2012 Love is Love There has been a lot of focus on gays and lesbians in the recent years. Slowly but surely our nation is coming to accept them into our society today. Be that as it may, there still lies a line with what we call immoral and what is sociably acceptable. When do we have the right to determine that line' What rights do gays have and what rights are they entitled to' The answer is that they should be allowed to marry, the same as every other free heterosexual couple. There should be no discrimination against gays getting married. We should all be entitled to equal rights. . Some say gays getting married should be immoral, but I say it is discrimination. Same-sex marriages are looked down upon in our society so bad that it has even been outlawed in the United States. This is because people claim it a state of “unnaturality”; which in actuality people cannot accept this because it has not is not been a traditional or conventional type of marriage. I remember an explanation of the difference between America and Russia when I was very young. I was told that in America we have freedom. We have the right to stand in the middle of the street and scream, "I hate Reagan!" The broadcast explained that in Russia they couldn't do that. I remember that because it was very striking. I didn't hate Reagan (I was very young) but I knew that I could do that if I wanted to. This type of discrimination should not take place in a land we call the free. If we were in another world were history had been altered and everyone grew up were same-sex affection was normal and the attraction between two individuals of the same-sex was normal and heterosexual attraction was wrong, then a whole new story would be present. What we’ve made of this world defines what we believe is right and wrong, and same-sex marriages shouldn’t be any exception. Same-sex marriages has limited or below average in numbers, quantity, magnitude or extent of a threat to society. In other words it will harm no one. This is just one reason why it should not be discriminated against and should be legal. People need to be more against alcohol, cigarettes, and other harmful substances that do harm people and people they are around. Alcohol’s short term effects include stomach instability and STD transmission due to loss of inhibitions. Long term effects of alcohol are liver damage and failure. Cigarettes, after constant use, which most often happens due to its addictive nature, will cause the user to have various different kinds of cancer, most commonly lung cancer. Having a same-sex relationship or marriage provides none of these complications if both mates care about each other. Additionally, the risks of transmitting STDs are just the same, if not more, with a heterosexual relationship. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal due to the fact that the adult users understand the risk. If this is so, then what is wrong with making the same decision about same-sex marriages' Evidently, same-sex marriages pose less threat to the individual and society; yet they are illegal still, even though it is a decision just like drinking or smoking. Homosexuals should receive equal treatment by the state, including the right to civil marriage. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” meaning that citizens in similar circumstances should be treated alike. . (Rights of gays and lesbians, 1999) In the case of Hernandez v. Robles it shows how legally it is considered discrimination to not allow gays to marry. The case began when same-sex couples filed suit against the City of New York, claiming that New York State's Domestic Relations Law as well as the city's action in denying them a marriage license, violated the New York State constitution's due process and equal protection provisions. The trial court decision emphasized the analogy to interracial marriage, noting that one of the couples in the case was an interracial couple and one of the plaintiffs' parents were an interracial couple who had been denied the right to marry under Texas anti-miscegenation laws. The trial court decision also noted that the plaintiffs represented a broad range of racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds as well as occupations (Hernandez v. Robles 2005a, 1-6) and the judge took note of the position of the children of same-sex parents, some of whom filed affidavits with the court to present their views. The trial court's judge ruled that tradition was not a reason to bar same-sex couples from marrying and that disapproval on moral or religious grounds could not form the basis for depriving people of fundamental rights. Because of the fact that many same-sex couples had biological children or adopted children, parenting could not form the basis for denial of rights “And, while eloquently praising the indisputably central role that marriage plays in human life, neither defendant, nor amicus indicate how that role would be diminished by allowing same-sex couples to marry, nor how the marriages of opposite-sex couples will be adversely affected by allowing same-sex couples to marry" (Hernandez v. Robles 2005a, 37). Furthermore, the trial court noted the state's arguments connecting same-sex marriage to the promotion of stable (presumptively heterosexual) families in welfare reform: Defendant notes that one of the stated purposes of the federal welfare program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (42 USC § 601, et seq.), is the reduction in out-of-wedlock births, and the fostering of conditions such that children will live in two-parent families. As this Court is not the first to recognize, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples would actually foster these goals, rather than undermining them, and it would reinforce the importance of marriage in creating stable relationships and two-parent families for the raising of children (Hernandez v. Robles 2005a, 44). In upholding the right of same-sex marriage, the court drew a line between stable and unstable relationships, rather than between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Thus, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that New York State's Domestic Relations Law was unconstitutional, that same-sex couples must be included within the ambit of the law, and that marriage licenses should be issued to them by the city clerk. Then the ruling was immediately appealed and, at the appeal court level, the trial court judge's decision was reversed (Hernandez v. Robles 2005b). In considering the legislature's options, the Court argued that might be reasonable for the legislature to believe that heterosexual couples needed the added protections of marriage because of the fact that: The Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. It could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement - in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits - to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other. The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite-sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only. Judge Catterson, in concurring with the majority, pointed out that, “To elevate the issue of same-sex unions to that of discrimination based on race does little service to the legacy of the civil rights movement, and ignores the history of race relations in this country. How can one consider the horror of the Civil War and the majesty of the Emancipation Proclamation in the same breath as same-sex unions'” Judge Catterson then took up the argument regarding the extent to which heterosexual couples need the protection of marriage. In discussing the argument that heterosexual marriage best protects the interests of children, Judge Catterson stated that, while it was true that same-sex couples could have children, they had to take special steps to do so through the use of sperm donation or adoption. Again citing the Cordy dissent in Goodridge, Judge Catterson argued that: “provided for the regulation of heterosexual behavior, brought order to the resulting procreation, and ensured a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized. Admittedly, heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are not necessarily conjoined . . . , but an orderly society requires some mechanism for coping with the fact that sexual intercourse commonly results in pregnancy and childbirth. The institution of marriage is that mechanism.” “The institution of marriage provides the important legal and normative link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand and family responsibilities on the other. The partners in a marriage are expected to engage in exclusive sexual relations, with children the probable result and paternity presumed. Whereas the relationship between mother and child is demonstratively and predictably created and recognizable through the biological process of pregnancy and childbirth, there is no corresponding process for creating a relationship between father and child. Similarly, aside from an act of heterosexual intercourse nine months prior to childbirth, there is no process for creating a relationship between a man and a woman as the parents of a particular child. The institution of marriage fills this void by formally binding the husband-father to his wife and child, and imposing on him the responsibilities of fatherhood. The alternative, a society without the institution of marriage, in which heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are largely, disconnected processes, would be chaotic.” The decision to define heterosexual interests in this way has profound legal and political importance. From a legal standpoint, the attempt to argue for heterosexual special interests was linked to the Court's argument in Hernandez v. Robles to deny an equal protection claim and to deploy arguments about the state regulation of heterosexual sexual conduct to provide a rational basis for existing civil marriage laws. That is, the fact that heterosexuals were in special need of protection because of their biological capacity to procreate and their proven track record of casual sex and unstable families provided the putative rational basis for the legal defense of the existing marriage law, according to the courts making these arguments. The discussion of the fragility of heterosexual relationships is in keeping with the discourse on marriage promotion and welfare reform, in which the social policies were designed to produce traditional families and to monitor female sexuality through discouraging parenting outside of the bonds of legal marriage. While these courts rejected the claims of discrimination based on sex, rejected the claims of stronger forms of equal protection, and rejected the claims of same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, they were required to assess the classificatory scheme to see if it was rationally related to the state's objective. As Mary Bonauto (counsel in for the Goodridge plaintiffs) points out, building on the dissents in both Hernandez and Andersen, the majority rulings in those cases concentrated on the reasons for including opposite sex couples within marriage, rather than on the validity of excluding same-sex couples from marriage (Bonauto 2007, 849-50). The debate over same-sex marriage is much more than a simple "gay rights" question. It reflects broad social changes in gender relations and family forms. These struggles play out in specific political contexts in which legal and political forms shape policy debates and, as we have seen, generate unintended consequences for policy change. The political discourse over same-sex marriage has been affected by the institutional structures of US politics. The regulation of marriage at the state level and the possibilities of amendment of state constitutions have created multiple political and legal opportunities for the iteration of the same-sex marriage debate and for the passage of defense of marriage legislation and state constitutional amendment at the state level. Should the government be allowed to make their selves a participant in our own personal choices' Gay-marriage to be honest is not that entirely personal. Marriage is a well-known joining together of two people with the state taking a special notice. But if we pride ourselves on living in a country where "all men are created equal," we must all feel some uncertainty by the way the government sees fit to "grant" marriage to some, but not to others. The Founding Fathers, I believe had this idea in their head when they brought into existence our country. Making our own mistakes and making our own decisions is one idea they had in mind. The key here is we make them both ourselves. What was not envisioned for our beautiful country was denying people the opportunity to marry the one person they are in love with just because they don’t want to marry in the “conventional” sense. The choice has been made by the two people who wish to marry. It is their decision to make and no one not even the government should be able to interfere with this decision. It is neither their place nor their right to interfere. In conclusion, same-sex marriage should be legalized. Same-sex marriages should be treated just like anything else; it is just different because it comes from another perspective and a liberal topic. Same-sex marriage should be legal if alcohol and cigarettes are, because it is also an adult decision but doesn’t harm the individual or society. Even though nature never had it planned, mankind can make anything happen. That is how we perfect ourselves: diversity through adversity (Same-sex Marriages 2012.) So will this debate ever come to an end and discrimination to the same sex couples end and they are able to marry as I agree with, or will it always be immoral to others' I hope I get to see the time come when gays can marry, and that time come quickly. References Bonauto, Mary. 2007. "Ending Marriage Discrimination: A Work in Progress." Suffolk University Law Review 40 (4): 813-59. Retrieved from: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_politics/v017/17.1.smith.html Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003). Retrieved from: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_politics/v017/17.1.smith.html Hernandez v. Robles, 26 A.D.3d 98, 805 N.Y.S.2d 354 [2005a]. retrieved from: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_politics/v017/17.1.smith.html Hernandez v. Robles, Supreme Court of the State of New York 103434/ 2004 (February) [2005b]. retrieved from: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_politics/v017/17.1.smith.html Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 6-7 (N.Y. 2006). Retrieved from: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_politics/v017/17.1.smith.html Rights of Gays and Lesbians. (1999). In Great American Court Cases, Gale. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/greatcourts/rights_of_gays_and_lesbians Same-Sex Marriages: Illegal Upon Opinion'. Digital Term Papers. Retrieved February 14, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://www.digitaltermpapers.com/b4225.htm Social Politics (2010) Gender Politics and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate in the United States Retrieved from: http://sp.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/1.full