The Article "Agast Gay Marriage" by William J. Bent - 595 Words | Essay Example

Contents:

• GAY MARRIAGE
• GAY MARRIAGE: THEOLOGIL AND MORAL ARGUMENTS
• THE ARTICLE “AGAST GAY MARRIAGE” BY WILLIAM J. BENT ESSAY
• THE CASE AGAST GAY MARRIAGE ESSAY
• FOR AND AGAST OF GAY MARRIAGE
• THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAST GAY MARRIAGE
• ARGUMENTS AGAST GAY MARRIAGE ESSAY
• SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?
• GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

GAY MARRIAGE

Early Years: Same-Sex Marriage Bans In 1970, jt one year after the historic Stonewall Rts that galvanized the gay rights movement, law stunt Richard Baker and librarian Jam McConnell applied for a marriage license Gerald Nelson rejected their applitn bee they were a same-sex uple, and a trial urt upheld his cisn. ” This lg effectively blocked feral urts om lg on same-sex marriage for s, leavg the cisn solely the hands of stat, which alt blow after blow to those hopg to see gay marriage beg 1973, for stance, Maryland beme the first state to create a law that explicly f marriage as a unn between a man and woman, a belief held by many nservative relig groups.

In 1989, the San Francis Board of Supervisors passed an ordance that allowed homosexual upl and unmarried heterosexual upl to register for domtic partnerships, which granted hospal visatn rights and other years later, the District of Columbia siarly passed a new law that allowed same-sex upl to register as domtic partners. C., 1993, the hight urt Hawaii led that a ban on same-sex marriage may vlate that state nstutn’s Equal Protectn Clse—the first time a state urt has ever ched toward makg gay marriage Hawaii Supreme Court sent the se—brought by a gay male uple and two lbian upl who were nied marriage licens 1990—back for further review to the lower First Circu Court, which 1991 origally dismissed the the state tried to prove that there was “pellg state tert” jtifyg the ban, the se would be tied up ligatn for the next three Defense of Marriage Act Opponents of gay marriage, however, did not s on their hnch.

GAY MARRIAGE: THEOLOGIL AND MORAL ARGUMENTS

That is, even if a state ma gay marriage legal, same-sex upl still wouldn’t be able to file e tax jotly, sponsor spo for immigratn benefs or receive spoal Social Secury payments, among many other act was a huge setback for the marriage equaly movement, but transient good news arose three months later: Hawaii Judge Kev S. Phg for Change: Civil Unns The next saw a whirlwd of activy on the gay marriage ont, begng wh the year 2000 when Vermont beme the first state to legalize civil unns, a legal stat that provis most of the state-level benefs of years later, Massachetts beme the first state to legalize gay marriage when the Massachetts Supreme Court led that same-sex upl had the right to marry Goodridge v.

Kansas and Texas were next 2005, and 2006 saw seven more stat passg Constutnal amendments agast gay towards the end of the , gay marriage beme legal var stat, cludg Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont (the first state to approve by legislative means) and New Hampshire. Domtic Partnerships Throughout the and the begng of the next, California equently ma headl for seawg on the gay marriage state was the first to pass a domtic partnership statute 1999, and legislators tried to pass a same-sex marriage bill 2005 and 2007.

For the first time the untry’s history, voters (rather than judg or legislators) Mae, Maryland, and Washgton approved Constutnal amendments permtg same-sex marriage marriage also beme a feral issue 2010, Massachetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, found Sectn 3 of DOMA—the part of the 1996 law that fed marriage as a unn between one man and one woman—to be unnstutnal. Wdsor, nservative Jtice Anthony Kennedy sid wh Jtic Ruth Bar Gsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan favor of same-sex marriage rights, ultimately makg gay marriage legal across the natn June this time, was still outlawed only 13 stat, and more than 20 other untri had already legalized gay marriage, startg wh the Netherlands December 2000.

THE ARTICLE “AGAST GAY MARRIAGE” BY WILLIAM J. BENT ESSAY

My purpose today is not to support or fend gay and lbian marriag—ed, many gays and lbians do not want to marry—but simply suggt a theologil approach that might open up the possibily for greater Christian acceptance of, and eccliastil approval for, same sex unns. A study report released 2010 showed that after some stat banned this kd of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lbians livg there experienced a 248% rise generalized anxiety disorrs, a 42% crease alhol-e disorrs, and a 37% rise mood disorrs (Wter, Fort & Senac, 2017). This paper argu that the majory of the Amerin people refe to untenance homosexual marriage, that this moral stand has held steady agast the spec propaganda of the liberal prs, and that legal statut fe marriage as between one man and one woman.

THE CASE AGAST GAY MARRIAGE ESSAY

Analysis of the Arguments for/Agast Gay Marriag The bottom le beg “moral valu”, the major ncern is whether moraly and ethil valu are enough to discrimate agast the particular social groups, or should one’s sexual orientatn acrd his or her state discrimatn, whereby the state prohibs to acrd any form of regnn to gays, but before takg a clear stand on the matter, is important to weigh the extent to which gays n be nsired evil, and whether or not they should be acrd. To nclu wh, this n be stated that gay marriage would be nsired as social stigma and even if legalized by law, would not be accepted by the society as breaks some very fundamental grounds on which the stutn of marriage is beg tablished.

Scholars and the general public beme creasgly terted the issue durg the late 20th century, a perd when attus toward homosexualy and laws regulatg homosexual behavur were liberalized, particularly wtern Europe and the Uned issue of same-sex marriage equently sparked emotnal and polil clash between supporters and opponents. In other s, the cultural homogeney supported by the domant relign did not rult the applitn of doctre to the civic realm but may nohels have fostered a smoother seri of discsns among the cizenry: Belgium and Spa had legalized same-sex marriage, for stance, spe official opposn om their predomant relig stutn, the Roman Catholic Church. Most of the world religns have at some pots their histori opposed same-sex marriage for one or more of the followg stated reasons: homosexual acts vlate natural law or dive tentns and are therefore immoral; passag sacred texts nmn homosexual acts; and relig tradn regniz only the marriage of one man and one woman as valid.

On July 25, 2014 Miami-Da County Circu Court Judge Sarah Zabel led Florida’s gay marriage ban unnstutnal and stated that the ban “serv only to hurt, to discrimate, to prive same-sex upl and their fai of equal digny, to label and treat them as send-class cizens, and to em them unworthy of participatn one of the fundamental stutns of our society. The Amerin Psychologil Associatn, Amerin Psychiatric Associatn, and others nclud that legal gay marriage giv upl “accs to the social support that already facilat and strengthens heterosexual marriag, wh all of the psychologil and physil health benefs associated wh that support. 2016 printial ndidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fra stated that civil unns are aquate as an equivalent to marriage: “Benefs are beg btowed to gay upl [ civil unns]… I believe we need to rpect those who believe that the word marriage has a spirual foundatn… Why n’t we rpect and tolerate that while at the same time sayg ernment nnot btow benefs unequally.

FOR AND AGAST OF GAY MARRIAGE

Court papers filed July 2014 by attorneys fendg Arizona’s gay marriage ban stated that “the State regulat marriage for the primary purpose of channelg potentially procreative sexual relatnships to endurg unns for the sake of jog children to both their mother and their father… Same-sex upl n never provi a child wh both her blogil mother and her blogil father. Lee Badgett, PhD, Director of the Center for Public Policy and Admistratn at the Universy of Massachetts at Amherst, stated that for many gay activists “marriage means adoptg heterosexual forms of fay and givg up distctively gay fay forms and perhaps even gay and lbian culture.

Pla Ettelbrick, JD, Profsor of Law and Women’s Studi, wrote 1989, “Marriage ns ntrary to two of the primary goals of the lbian and gay movement: the affirmatn of gay inty and culture and the validatn of many forms of relatnships. Queer activist Anrs Zanichkowsky stated June 2013 that the then mpaign for gay marriage “tentnally and malicly eras and exclus so many queer people and cultur, particularly trans and genr non-nformg people, poor queer people, and queer people non-tradnal fai… marriage thks non-married people are viant and not tly servg of civil rights.

In Islamic tradn, several hadhs (passag attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) nmn gay and lbian relatnships, cludg the saygs “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shak, ” and “Sihaq [lbian sex] of women is za [illegimate sexual terurse]. Matt Barber, Associate Dean for Onle Programs at Liberty Universy School of Law, stated, “Every dividual engaged the homosexual liftyle, who has adopted a homosexual inty, they know, tuively, that what they’re dog is immoral, unnatural, and self-stctive, yet they thirst for that affirmatn.

THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAST GAY MARRIAGE

A 2003 set of guil signed by Pope John Pl II stated: “There are absolutely no grounds for nsirg homosexual unns to be any way siar or even remotely analogo to God’s plan for marriage and fay… Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go agast the natural moral law.

” Brian Brown — the executive director for California of the Natnal Organizatn for Marriage, the leadg sgle-issue anti-gay-marriage group, led by people wh close ti to lears the Catholic Church and the Church of J Christ of Latter-day Sats — boasted after the Grand Hyatt prott that Mr. 5 ln to a mpaign to pass Referendum 74, which would legalize same-sex marriage the state, proponents outspent opponents more than five to pro-gay-marriage activists ually creded chang their persuasive msagg to their improved mpaigns, their most obv new advantage me the form of rourc. There was only one week 2012 when anti-gay-marriage ads outnumbered pro-gay-marriage ads the stat wh November ballot measur, and the largt major media markets, pro-gay-marriage mpaigners averaged a two-to-one advertisg then, lls for boytts — as part of a broar iologil e rather than a narrow prott agast specific bs practic — have grown so equent that Amerin polics often feels like a proxy war between rporatns.

I don’t thk there is an issue that is a tougher issue for people to stand up agast Amerin culture today than this one, both om the standpot of the mastream media and the popular culture nmng you for your – they n e all sorts of words to scribe you – tolerant, bigot, homophobe, hater. They pot out, for stance, that homosexual upl who have been together for years often fd themselv whout the basic rights and privileg that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual upl who legally marry — om the sharg of health and pensn benefs to hospal visatn rights.

ARGUMENTS AGAST GAY MARRIAGE ESSAY

The Catholic Church and evangelil Christian groups have played a leadg role public opposn to gay marriage, while male Prottant church and other relig groups wrtle wh whether to orda gay clergy and perform same-sex marriage ceremoni.

Ined, the ordatn and marriage of gay persons has been a growg wedge between the socially liberal and nservative wgs of the Epispal and Prbyterian church, leadg some nservative ngregatns and even whole dc to break away om their natnal church. However, a 2006 Pew survey found that sizable majori of whe male Prottants (66%), Catholics (63%) and those whout a relig affiliatn (78%) favor allowg homosexual upl to enter to civil unns that grant most of the legal rights of marriage whout the tle. The spark that started the bate me om Hawaii 1993 when the state’s Supreme Court led that an existg law banng same-sex marriage would be unnstutnal unls the state ernment uld show that had a pellg reason for discrimatg agast gay and lbian upl.

Although the bate over gay marriage for a while seemed to fa om the public eye, the issue was sudnly and dramatilly tapulted back to the headl November 2003 when the hight state urt Massachetts led that the state’s nstutn guaranteed gay and lbian upl the right to marry. ImageLorie Smh said her Christian fah requir her to turn away ctomers seekg servic to celebrate same-sex Woolf for The New York TimThe Supreme Court sid on Friday wh a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refe to sign weddg webs for same-sex upl spe a state law that forbids discrimatn agast gay people. The liberal jtic viewed as somethg else entirely — a dispute that threatened societal protectns for gay rights and rolled back some recent an impassned dissent, Jtice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the oute signaled a return to a time when people of lor and other mory groups faced open discrimatn.

SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?

Kavangh and Amy Coney Barrett, shifted the urt to the urts have generally sid wh gay and lbian upl who were refed service by bakeri, florists and others, lg that potential ctomers are entled to equal treatment, at least parts of the untry wh laws forbiddg discrimatn based on sexual owners of bs challengg those laws have argued that the ernment should not force them to choose between the requirements of their fahs and their livelihoods. Addnally, several stat terpret existg laws agast sex discrimatn to apply to bias relatg to sexual orientatn and genr inty, even though they do not have laws explicly forbiddg such stat that do not offer protectns to gay and transgenr people on those grounds, municipal laws ver many Human Rights Campaign, an L.

McCoy for The New York TimThe urt’s cisn favor of a Colorado web signer, Lorie Smh, had an unual feature: It was based on njecture and Smh, who objects to providg weddg-related servic for same-sex marriag, never turned down a gay uple.

ETFriday’s lg was another reassurg cisn for relig celebratory moment outsi the Supreme Court on Friday, after the urt livered the latt a strg of judgments favor of relig Zuhaib/Associated PrsConservativ who have moral and theologil objectns to gay marriage saw the Supreme Court’s cisn on Friday as reassurance that they would be able to assert their beliefs a public square that they see as creasgly hostile to a 6-to-3 vote, spl along iologil l, the jtic agreed wh a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refe to provi servic for same-sex marriag, spe a state law that forbids discrimatn agast gay people. Several siar s have centered on nservative Christian small bs owners who object to workg on gay weddgs specifilly, cludg a baker Colorado, two vatn signers Arizona and a Kentucky-based a news nference shortly after the lg was issued, Krist Waggoner, general unsel for Alliance Defendg Freedom, which reprented Ms.

GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

” She said her nsiratn acceptg work as a webse signer was the “msage” of the se, not the inty of the Smh’s portfol clus webs for church, real tate pani and polil many nservative Christians hailed the cisn on Friday, drew cricism om some progrsive Christians and terfah groups, cludg those that serve gay people of fah. ETHere’s how urt battl over servg same-sex upl have played out the Cote for The New York TimIn the latt se volvg same-sex marriage rights, relig eedom and discrimatn, the Supreme Court on Friday led favor of a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right not to provi servic for same-sex marriag spe a state law that bans discrimatn agast gay ’s a brief look at some of the most proment s before Friday’s:A Colorado baker ws urtIn June 2018, the Supreme Court led favor of a Colorado baker who refed to bake a weddg ke for a gay uple.