The same-sex marriage debate in America is certainly a “front-burner” issue. Quite a few states have now legalized same-sex marriage, and the debate has moved to the national stage. Opponents of same-sex marriage have proposed a national constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman, but the proposal has gotten little traction. Proponents of the practice are joined in opposing the constitutional amendment by those who may abhor the practice but do not believe that defining marriage is a proper role of the national government. A case that could alter the political landscape in this area is also scheduled to be argued before the United States Supreme Court.
When did the debate begin?
The same-sex marriage debate can trace its roots all the way to the founding of this country. Lines of demarcation were drawn between national and state authority, and Americans have been arguing about and redefining roles of the states and the national government ever since. Defining and licensing marriages has always been a state government function, but if the Supreme Court overturns the Defense of Marriage Act the states could be limited in how they can restrict the institution of marriage due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Would a state that does not have same-sex marriage, such as Utah, be required by constitutional law to recognize a same-sex marriage from a state such as Vermont?
It is safe to say that same-sex marriage is an issue that is controversial from a number of standpoints. The issue carries with it undertones of religion, equality, interstate relations, and the proper role of government. The debate at the Leavitt Center should be lively, as it is in the larger political arena.
Here our a few questions to get the discussion started:
1. How do we define “family” and should this be changed?
2. Why does the government need to regulate marriage? Is marriage more a religious act or should it be considered more a religious obligation?
3. What benefits are same-sex couples not receiving currently? Specific to Utah?
Professor Howell is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Southern Utah Utah University.
I’m amazed about how timely this issue is, with former Utah Republican Governor John Huntsman coming out in support of the legalization of marriage and overturning California’s Prop 8. Here is his coming out: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/
I looked at the article. I don’t completely agree with the idea that homosexual couples should be defined as married. The Liberals who are homosexual claim major religions do not give them freedom to marry in their chapels or temples. That is not what the First Amendment is about. What the Liberals propose by forcing religions to get homosexual couples married is to destroy the First Amendment. “Freedom of Religion” means that religions are free to be exercised or not at all, so long as the religion’s ideals do not deprive any citizen of their rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and/or property. I think that before we allow homosexuals to be classified as married, they are to first honestly obey the First Amendment. Otherwise, we should assume that homosexuals are in violation of the First Amendment. If that is unfair, then I challenge every homosexual to prove they respect the First Amendment.
Cache has brought forth a very valid point. Religions are protected by the first amendment to practice how they choose. Because of this the state cannot require religions to accept gay marriage. Not everyone accepts every relogion. Why should everyone have to accept gay marriage? I do not support gay marriage because it does not fit what I think a family should be. Marriage is between a man and a woman to show commitment not just to each other but to their family. A man and a woman can make children. A gay couple cannot.
I define family as this; a place that is not physical or even tangible. It is a place where you can find love and have love wherever you look. It doesn’t matter if that family has a same-sex couple in it. The point of family is to be a support system of love and acceptance no matter what. A family consists of two guardians, mom and dad, or not; who love their (his or her) children and are able to support them financially and emotionally. They are the people that we can always count on, no matter what. (Friends can even be family, your friends do play these rolls.)That is how I personally define family.
I honestly think that Same-Sex Marriage should be legalized. However I do not think that it is right to tell the churches to make it okay in there religious establishments. Religion and state should remain separate. Churches definitely have the right to deny letting same-sex couples marry in a church. It’s a church and the LGBTQ community should not ask for the churches to allow them to get married in their establishments. I think this because I feel it is only fair. I agree with same-sex marriage for many reasons. Main one is because I am a part of the LGBTQ community and support it fully. I say legalize it.
Now for the third question. This is what I could find. I am not sure if this is specific to Utah or not. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.html
I feel that one of the problems with is that our society tells us that voting for something just because you feel it is wrong is not enough. That our moral codes alone are not enough for an opinion and that they do not hold as much validity to some abstract argument. For some reason I have to justify my moral code to someone else, when in reality all laws are based on moral codes and the logic is peripheral anyways. Hopefully this example will better make my point:
Say two people in their 20′s are camping together and they decided to have consensual sex. The women is using birth control and the man uses a condom. They agree afterwards that it was a one time event. However, these two people are siblings.
Gross, right? Most people in our society would say that this is wrong (And I am not trying to say that it isn’t). However, the same people who claim it is wrong would be unable to give a suitable logical reason why it is wrong. It is consensual, they use birth control and neither is a minor. The only reason people can give is that, “I just feel it is wrong.” and shouldn’t that be enough? Really, why do we need any other reason than “this is my moral feeling”? Shouldn’t our moral code be just as valid as any logical argument? Many do not agree with same-sex-marriage, but don’t know how to say “I feel it is wrong.” Sure, that could go into religious rights or other abstract ideas that don’t really matter to make their point. In the end all that matters is their moral code. So here is my moral code: I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe that marriage is sacred. Now, of course others do not share my moral code and there beliefs are just as valid as mine. I respect their beliefs and hope that they respect mine.
Yesterday I read an article on CNN about a transgender using the girls bathroom. This transgender was in kindergarten. The school banned the child from using the girls bathroom. The child has male genitals and the school thought is was inappropriate for him to use the girls bathroom. Other parents complained that they do not want their girls to be exposed to him. Of course the child’s parents became upset. The transgender’s parents claimed they are allowing their child to be who he is. Let’s think about this for a minute. The child is not a transgender by choice. I am sure he does not even understand the full meaning of being a transgender. I believe the parents labeled him as a transgender. How much should we accept the unacceptable? The gay community has been forcing us to agree they should be able to marry. Now in elementary school children are being forced to accept the transgender. Elementary school! When will society bring back a moral sense and remember the difference between right and wrong? If a person is “born this way”, than why did they wait to “come out of the closet”? They should have “been this way” since birth. The gay community grew into “this way”, it wasn’t born.
Here is the website for the article about the transgender kindergartener.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/28/us/colorado-transgender-girl-school/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
My question about gay marriage is what the debate is over. Gay people are dating, having sexual relations, and living together. I feel like we may just be arguing over whether or not to allow them the label of “marriage.” I mean, many of them are already basically married. By saying we want gay marriage to be illegal, are we saying we want to arrest every gay couple that is already acting as though they are married? What are we fighting over?