Free Essays on Gays

Last November the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that excluding gay couples from civil marriage violated the state constitution. The court gave the legislature six months- until May- to do something about it. Some legislators mounted efforts to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but as of this writing they have failed (and even if passed, a ban would not take effect until at least 2006). With unexpected urgency the country faces the possibility that marriage licenses might soon be issued to homosexual couples. To hear the opposing sides talk, a national culture war is unavoidable. But same-sex marriage neither must nor should be treated as an all-or-nothing national decision. Instead individual states should be left to try gay marriage if and when they choose- no national ban, no national mandate. Not only would a decentralized approach be in keeping with the country's most venerable legal traditions; it would also improve, in three ways, the odds of making same-sex marriage work for gay and straight Americans alike. (atlantic) PRO: Banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. Marriage is a basic human right and should not be denied to any individual. At various times in U.S. history, other minorities have been prevented from marrying: African-Americans, for example. Interracial marriage was also legally prohibited in various states, until the Supreme Court ruled such bans unconstitutional in 1967. A Hawaii commission created to examine marriage discrimination concluded that banning gay marriage cut same-sex couples off from a host of tangible advantages, including health and retirement benefits; life insurance, income tax, estate tax and wrongful-death benefits, and spousal and dependent support. Marriage promotes stability. Gay men and lesbians in committed relationships want to be able to celebrate their love and fidelity in the same way that heterosexual couples do. Religious conserva... Free Essays on Gays Free Essays on Gays Last November the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that excluding gay couples from civil marriage violated the state constitution. The court gave the legislature six months- until May- to do something about it. Some legislators mounted efforts to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but as of this writing they have failed (and even if passed, a ban would not take effect until at least 2006). With unexpected urgency the country faces the possibility that marriage licenses might soon be issued to homosexual couples. To hear the opposing sides talk, a national culture war is unavoidable. But same-sex marriage neither must nor should be treated as an all-or-nothing national decision. Instead individual states should be left to try gay marriage if and when they choose- no national ban, no national mandate. Not only would a decentralized approach be in keeping with the country's most venerable legal traditions; it would also improve, in three ways, the odds of making same-sex marriage work for gay and straight Americans alike. (atlantic) PRO: Banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. Marriage is a basic human right and should not be denied to any individual. At various times in U.S. history, other minorities have been prevented from marrying: African-Americans, for example. Interracial marriage was also legally prohibited in various states, until the Supreme Court ruled such bans unconstitutional in 1967. A Hawaii commission created to examine marriage discrimination concluded that banning gay marriage cut same-sex couples off from a host of tangible advantages, including health and retirement benefits; life insurance, income tax, estate tax and wrongful-death benefits, and spousal and dependent support. Marriage promotes stability. Gay men and lesbians in committed relationships want to be able to celebrate their love and fidelity in the same way that heterosexual couples do. Religious conserva...