It isn't possible to stop this from happening, but it is possible to stand up for what is morally right and for what isn't. And now, we are faced with what many people feel is the inevitable evolution of marriage: legalizing homosexual marriages. Not allowing homosexual marriages to be recognized by the government and to be legal would prevent changing a fundamental institution, would prohibit breaching the charter of rights and freedoms, and would prevent unthinkable consequences. Every major religion and culture has embraced marriage as a unique relationship between a man and a woman. One of the only times marriage was altered, was when no fault divorce was legalised.

No fault divorce was introduced, and it has proven to be a complete disaster for children and often for the adults involved. And now, we find ourselves gambling yet again with an institution that is foundational to the well being of our children and a healthy society. The same argument once made in support of no fault divorce, this will not affect good marriages and healthy families, is now being made in support of gay marriage.

Yet we have no credible evidence to prove that altering our marriage laws again will be any less problematic for children and society than was no fault divorce. The painful lessons we have learned as a result of no fault divorce should stop this process cold in its tracks. To fundamentally change an institution whose worth has been proved over thousands of years and in hundreds of cultures risks unintended and unexpected consequences. It is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down an edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society. It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in rationalwiki's mission statement. Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under cc by sa 3.0 or any later version. Which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of rationalwiki editors' thoughts.

These are the words that appear on proposition 8 in california, a ballot initiative that will be voted on in november 2008 to ban same sex marriage forever in the state. It's a very saddening experience for same sex couples to go through when they realize they can never get married in the state, nor would the state recognize their marriage performed elsewhere. Of course, in states where same sex marriage is not constitutionally banned, it's possible to fight a statute that prohibits it in court. However, legal arguments for same sex marriage don't hold as much water as a state's interest in restricting marriage to a man and woman.

This essay will discuss a couple of the legal arguments made by advocates of same sex marriage. Now, before we get into this, we must all have a through understanding of the type of reviews used to decide equal protection cases, and if you already know them, then just bear with me for this paragraph. First off, there are three types of reviews used to decide equal protection cases, which are strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis.

Normally, strict scrutiny is used for suspect classifications, and sexual orientation does not fall under suspect classification, only a quasi suspect classification under united states law. Normally, the argument made against same sex marriage in court is decided on a rational basis test, since there are no suspect classifications in marriage laws, and there is no discrimination based on gender or alienage, in which case intermediate scrutiny would be used. A rational basis review requires the state to show a legitimate state interest and how the discrimination is rationally related to it. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to this classification the classification is based on the relationship. A same sex couple is not necessarily homosexual, though the vast majority of people in same sex relationships may be gay.

What sort of rational basis would a state have to deny same sex couples marriage? the most common one used is procreation. Rationally speaking, it is only possible for a man and woman to procreate, so the state has an interest in promoting procreation and child rearing within wedlock, and to protect the nuclear family. To reiterate, since gay people as individuals are not denied from marrying, the issue is not based on the sexual orientation, but on the relationship between two people of the same sex.

Although massachusetts has argued against this and ruled differently, several courts in several states have ruled in favor of this argument, including those in washington, maryland, new york, new jersey, and minnesota. They've made no distinctions for fertility or age either, making it clear that they are exceptions and that marriage is for the purpose of propagating society and protecting the nuclear family unit. The whole prohibiting same sex marriage discriminates against gay people argument doesn't work here, because as the supreme court ruled in romer v. Evans, sexual orientation is only subject to a rational basis test, not strict scrutiny. Texas, the striking down of sodomy laws did not pave the way for same sex marriage, because it was ruled on the grounds of substantive due process instead of equal protection, and that could hurt the legal arguments for same sex marriage a lot.

Kid Writing Paper With Borders

Virginia that bans on interracial marriage are not constitutional on equal protection grounds, including using language like fundamental right to marry. This means that as a person, you have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex. The ruling in loving simply reaffirmed that right by not making race a factor in marriage, and according to baker v. Nelson, the minnesota supreme court ruling made just years after loving, stated, i n commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex. If a man and woman wanted to get married, they would be allowed, no matter if they truly loved each other, not matter if they were straight or gay. Anyone can have relationship with whoever they want, but if they want a marriage, they have to be with someone of the opposite sex. That's what the law requires, as well as both members of the couple being of age and not being consanguineous, and consenting.

Now, do i, the author of this essay, support same sex marriage? of course i do, what liberal doesn't? however, court battles are not the answer to legalizing it. Instead of winning over judges, you should try to win over the hearts of people and have them democratically legalize it. They want to have a say in marriage too, it's not just something very important to same sex couples. We all want to have a say in marriage, and if we can convince people through political, not legal, arguments that same sex marriage is okay, we can truly achieve justice in the name of democracy.

Hmm i was thinking about the same thing not far off, simply not being satisfied with the production and having a hard time to say to the producers this is so god damned awful. Some of the problem is that the producers are quite a far away and plainly speaking, you have met a producer essentially with a big reach in the wrong places. Technically for someone who really likes that music it 039 s not overrated at all however, alike i wrote. Tbh i 039 d just listen to game or eazy e or pac without the walker/waller plank. I came up with this phrase falsely ordering affairs or making disorder from affairs upon affairs. I still get excited that i would be able to speak to pod one day, but you seem like you have a grasp that 039 friends 039 has its limitations so it would be a wow your so cool and thats about it. Some times you need ppl to be with you know like drake from the bottom? with all the peoples or even back with biggie saying the same thing.

But it 039 s all trivial lockoff b.c capitalism over keys mixed in with fatcats which is further mixed by falsing up down and side red grandma n red grandpa. So in summary without dip wrong, the grouping of choices is so astronomically mathed out dre z aftermath that i try to go by the theme of something along the lines of actually don 039 t branch out into new music , keep with in stuff that you promise quality are alike then when the producer says it 039 s a best album lines, then it always ever is, similar as thinking about others without the resources limit of musical hell. True friends always fail the water wine line, so we watch where we walkin, see r7 when r7 get there. A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars david popenoe, linda waite, maggie gallagher, sara mclanahan, david blankenhorn, paul amato, and alan booth has contributed to this conclusion. This statement from sara mclanahan, a sociologist at princeton university, is representative: if we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two parent ideal.

Against Same Sex Marriage Essay Text

Kid Writing Paper With Borders

Refereren Naar Master Thesis