Same-Sex Marriage is Constitutional

     

Does the equal protection clause of the Constitution allow same-sex marriage? President Barrack Obama seems to think marriage for all couples should be allowed in all 50 states. In the article, "Obama: 'I Think The Equal Protection Clause Does Guarantee Same-Sex Marriage," Paige Lavender discusses a conversation president Obama had with writer Jeffrey Toobin for the latest New Yorker issue over the legality of same-sex marriage. In Obama's words, "ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states" (The Obama Brief). In her article, Paige uses ethical and logical appeals to inform her readers. By using resources such as The New Yorker and The Huffington Post, two very popular news sources, her arguments credibility rises.  Readers also trust its credibility because of the authority of president Obama and Jeffrey Toobin. It seems more states around the United States are changing their minds about same-sex marriage. "Obama said the best Supreme Court decision since he took office was the recent rejection of gay marriage appeals from five states" (Paige). Which he believes is a "consequential and powerful" result of the changes in society. I hope more people in office begin to think like president Obama so that everyone is able to marry equally. After all, it is their constitutional right.

Lavender, Paige. "Obama: 'I Think The Equal Protection Clause Does Guarantee Same-Sex Marriage' In All States." The Huffington Post. TheHiffingtonPost.com. 20 October 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/obama-gay-marriage_n_6014116.html. 20 October 2014.

Toobin, Jeffrey. "The Obama Brief." The New Yorker. 20 October 2012. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/27/obama-brief. 20 October 2014.

McCollester,Darren. "Love Wins". Getty Images. Photo. http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/351945/slide_351945_3804996_free.jpg. 20 October 2014.

Marriage Is For Love

Does having different beliefs about marriage change its value? Well no, not to Lexie Matheson, who claims "marriage means an awful lot" to her. Lexie was born a male but she identifies herself as a female and also underwent a gender transition. In her article, "What Marriage Equality Means to Me," she discusses the importance of marriage to her and the difficulties she had keeping her marriage status during her transition. Lexie was able to marry her female partner because she was biologically born a male, however, in order to complete her gender transition and change her birth certificate, she would have to divorce in order to have approval. She was stuck, having to choose between her true self and love. She ended up choosing her family but eventually the country she lives in passed a bill that allowed her to have both. Lexie's story is inspirational and gives hope to all couples not only in the United States but in the whole world who are forced to choose, like Lexie, between their true self and love. I believe that was her purpose for writing this article. As well as to show that marriage is valuable, even to those who is is denied to. Her article appeals to everyone who is emotionally torn between such choices and to those fighting for equality. Her belief that marriage is not religious but is a "commitment to love each other," and a "commitment to care for each other," is one that many take to heart and many fight for. Lexie created a strong argument because it hits hearts.

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/asia/what-marriage-equality-means-to-me/ 
http://sites.psu.edu/reshmakjblog/wp-content/uploads/sites/2181/2013/04/alg-gay-marriage-jpg.jpg

A Change Underway

The fight may not be over yet, but the end may be near. Since 2003, when Massachusetts was the first and only state to legalize gay marriage, over 50% of the U.S. now supports it. In the article, "Why America changed its mind on gay marriage," Stephanie Coontz identifies four reasons why Americans are now pro gay marriage. Her first reason "is the increased visibility of gays and lesbians across the culture, as more come out of the closet." From this she concludes that "it is harder to deny rights to people who are no longer faceless 'others.'" Because so many people can now identify some one they know as gay, either family, friend or celebrity, they are likely to support gay marriage. This is an appeal to pathos, or emotion, because someone we care about may be gay and because of that we will support them. The second reason she identifies "is the success the civil rights and feminist movement have had in establishing social equality as a moral and ethical principle." This is a logical appeal because she uses facts and examples from the past to show that rights for equality have concord. The third reason she says is "the growing tendency to treat freedom of choice in marriage as a basic right." In the past, marriage between races was not allowed, along with other foolish restrictions. This is also a logical appeal. Stephanie's last reason is "the dramatic changes heterosexuals have made in their own marriages." In the last 30 years, marriage and the roles each gender played have been changing throughout the years. It is now acceptable for women and men to share their roles in the home as well as outside. 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/13/opinion/coontz-same-sex-marriage/

We Are All Human And We All Feel

Music is everywhere and touches everyone. It's a very big influence in the world because every song tells a message and everyone at one point or another is listening to that message. In artist Sam Smith’s song “Stay With Me,” he speaks of loneliness while he pleads to his one night stand to stay, something many people have experienced or can relate to. This song has become very popular and is rising in the charts. However, not many people who know this song know that Sam Smith is gay. Still, that does not matter because his lyrics to not pertain to any one sexual orientation. The message in Sam Smith’s song can pertain to anybody, straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual or whatever. John Paul, an Oklahoma writer who happens to be gay, writes about his experience listening to this song and how it touches him. He shares how he has always had to interpret music so that it applies to his life because songs of his experiences are rare or not many artists are gay. For the first time, John Paul felt that this song was for him. But it’s not only a song for John Paul, it’s for everyone, a song anyone who has felt lonely can relate to. I think this song can teach people that sexual orientation does not matter because everyone is capable of feeling the same feelings. With that being said, they should be allowed to act on those feelings just as anyone else can.

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/06/09/op-ed-why-sam-smiths-stay-me-makes-me-cry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-5XG-DbAA

Dead Arguments

When arguing against same-sex marriage opponents tend to dance around the same arguments over and over again. Murray Lipp identifies and critics these arguments in her article "The Top 10 Arguments Against Gay Marriage: All Receive Failing Grades!" The 10 arguments she identifies are nature, procreation, religion, redefinition, sanctity, children, reverse discrimination, slippery slope, civil unions, and states' rights.

 Opponents who argue that same-sex marriage “is not natural” fail to understand marriage was not created by the natural world but rather by humans.

Marrying to procreate is also untrue, many couples cannot or choose to not have children.

The argument that same-sex marriage is against religion is invalid because religion should never be mixed with laws of the states.

“You’re trying to redefine the institution.” Nobody wants to redefine marriage but rather modify it as culture evolves. Just as it was modified different races could not marry or when women were considered property to their husbands.

Same-sex marriage does not threaten the sanctity of marriage because there’s really no way it can cause heterosexual couples to divorce. Unless someone in that relationship is gay.

Some opponents argue that “it will harm the children” because they need a “mom and dad” to be normal and successful. However, there is no evidence that shows kids are damaged from having gay parents.

“Religious people will be discriminated against.” Just because some fear that they will lose business because of their beliefs does not mean others should be deprived of equal rights.

Legalizing gay marriage will not lead to marriage involving animals, siblings, children or groups of people. That’s a bit dramatic. Other countries and states who have already legalized gay marriage have not encountered that problem.

Civil unions are NOT good enough. “Separate but equal” does not provide the same benefits.

States can make their own decisions on equal marriage is true, but then why do states arguing that also support DOMA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/murray-lipp/the-top-10-arguments-agai_b_3337249.html

If Gay Marriage Is Not For You

“If you’re not for gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person.” Just like that, in the simplest way possible, Whoopi Goldberg explains equal marriage. Whoopi Goldberg is famous all around, as a comedian, host, actress, author and activist. As an advocate of human rights she is pro equal marriage. In the image to the side, she argues her thoughts towards gay marriage as well as why it shouldn't matter to anyone who’s not gay all in just one sentence. As a talk show host, author and activist, she has pretty good credibility. Basically, what she is telling everyone is, if you’re not gay then don’t marry gay and stay out of it. For some reason, people feel the need to tell others who they should and should not marry. But I have a feeling that if the tables were reversed they wouldn't like it so much. Marriage shouldn't affect anyone other than the two people that are in that relationship.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/00/6c/95/006c95f5bd656af9257f7669f3e6b844.jpg

Why Banning Gay Marriage Is Really Unconstitutional

Children are more involved in gay marriage than most people know, mainly because many gay couples adopt. So why shouldn’t they be considered in the decision making of marriage equality? Susannah W. Pallvogt and Catherine E. Smith, professors at Washburn University School of Law and University of Denver Strum College of Law, wrote “The Smartest Constitutional Argument for Marriage Equality That No One Is Making,” an article in which they argue that banning gay marriage is against the constitutional rights of children. The article contains logical appeals in their reasons and examples to support their argument that the state cannot punish children for the acts of adults. First they point out a few cases in which states tried to do just that. Either by forbidding children who were born out of wedlock from receiving benefits after the deaths of their mothers, denying the distribution of worker’s compensation to “illegitimate” children after the death of a parent, or denying undocumented immigrant children a public education. However, the Supreme Court revoked them because “no child is responsible for his birth and penalizing the illegitimate child is an ineffectual - as well as unjust - way of deterring the parent.” They used the cases to connect them to how children are affected by the banning of gay marriage. Which leads to another one of their points, that the children of same-sex partners are denied benefits, “both economically and psychologically,” because of the marital status of their parents. Now Susannah and Catherine use an ethical appeal to draw morals around the belief that banning gay marriage does not justifies trying to control adults and punishing children in the process. Lastly, they point out that courts have not used this argument to resolve the issue because they are not well informed. They say it’s because gay couples raising children is a new thing but I think the courts are just trying to ignore that it potentially violates the rights of children.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/09/29/children_of_gay_couples_make_marriage_equality_a_constitutional_necessity.html