reasons why same sex marriage should be legal.. ITS FACT IT SHOULD BE LEGAL IN ALL 50 states!?

Same sex marriage should be legal in all 50 of the United States. For multiple reasons The concept of marriage as “only” a man and a women is inaccurate, Same sex marriage is protected by the constitution commitments to liberty and equality, Many places have already legalized same sex marriage, and same sex marriage reflects lower divorce rates.

The concept of marriage as “only” a man and a women is inaccurate. Many sources have already changed their definition to include same sex couples. wikipedia defines same sex marriage as, a social or ritually recognized union or legal contract between “spouses” that establishes rights, and obligations between them and their children. No where in their definition do they ever define marriage as “man and women” only. Oxford English Dictionary, the world's most renowned dictionary of the English language, has announced that the definition of "marriage" will be tweaked to include same-sex couples now that it is legal for homosexuals to wed each other in some places (christianpost.com). The online dictionary Macmillandictionary.com was the first UK dictionary to change its definition of marriage to comply with the change in the law allowing same sex couples to marry. Their definition now is "The relationship between two people who are husband and wife, or a similar relationship between people of the same sex," with the second clause newly added (the guardian.com) . Many of these big sources have already changed their definition to include same sex marriage to be just as equal and important as straight marriage. So the excuse of “the definition of marriage is only a man and women” is no longer a valid reason to ban same sex marriage.

Same sex marriage is protected by the constitution commitments to liberty and equality.

The US supreme court ruled in 1974’s Cleveland board of education VS. Laftlever that the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is protected by the due process clause (Marriage equality.org). Also, A United States Judge in 2010 said that banning same sex marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses (marriage equality.org).

Many places have already legalized same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is already legal in 16 US states. 14 different countries as a whole already allow same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is legal in some jurisdictions of Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The amount of people who oppose same sex marriage has decreased since 1988, and the amount of people who favor it has increased since then. As seen many places already legalized gay marriage, and some states in the US already allow it. The “whole” US should legalize it.

Same sex marriage reflects lower divorce rates. Massachusetts the first state to allow gay marriage in 2004. This state Showed the lowest divorce rate than any other state in the US from 2003 to 2008. The divorce rate had dropped 21%. To reflect this, After Alaska banned same sex marriage, the state showed a 17% increase in divorce rate. This proves that same sex marriage well improve a state's divorce rates, and could improve the united states all togather. Same sex marriages arent perfect neither are same straight marriages however, In a year only 1% of the whole number of currently-married or registered same-sex couples get divorced. finally, 5 of the 10 states that had the lowest divorce rate in 2009 were states that had legal same sex marriage.

However certain people will say same sex marriage is against religion for biblical reasons. There are various religious views on same-sex marriage. religions both that approve and disapprove same-sex marriage (marriage equality.org). Saying that same sex marriage is “against the bible” is implying that all people are the same exact religion, practice the same beliefs, and practice religion in the first place. As the first amendment of the United States Says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise”(law.cornell.edu).

4 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Marriage is a religious institution. It predates all civil governments, including the United States of America. It has always been a religious expression.

    The Constitution of the United States of America has laid down the foundation of the concept of Religious Liberty where the State cannot interfere with the religious practice and experience of citizens. Almost immediately, the government crossed this line in the regulation and licensing of Marriage. Because, at the time, the government's definition of Marriage corresponded with the great majority of the citizen's religious belief of marriage this line crossing was unobserved.

    Then a few people wanted to divorce their spouses which violated the religious doctrine of many Americans. The government changed its definition of marriage and began to interfere even more with the religious beliefs of more and more citizens.

    More recently, even fewer people wanted to marry people of the same gender. Once again, the government is changing its definition of marriage and is interfering with even more of the religious beliefs of more and more citizens.

    Some local and state governments have created legal "civil unions" for homosexual couples and given them all the same legal rights and responsibilities as those in "legal" marriages.

    I propose that the government withdraw from its unconstitutional interference with Marriage which is a religious institution. The government should reclassify all "legal" marriages to civil unions. The definition of civil union is then up to what the government decides and does not interfere with the religious institution of Marriage.

    With love in Christ.

  • 7 years ago

    @ Michael Lynch

    I agree with you, however i would nitpick and tweak your reasons a little.

    "So the excuse of “the definition of marriage is only a man and women” is no longer a valid reason to ban same sex marriage."

    The definition alone was never a reason to ban it. That would be circular reasoning in the first place. Language serves people, we are not slaves to words. If the definition was what was under challenge then trotting it out does not defend it and that would have been circular reasoning. If no jurisdiction legalized it then that would mean the definition would be valid given then way you put it. Dictionaries release new edition as there are new words and the definitions of words change and evolve to reflect society.

    "Same sex marriage is protected by the constitution commitments to liberty and equality."

    This legal argument is still ongoing and has not been settled. While i personally agree the only authority on this which matters is the US Supreme Court, only they can rule this. They may rule it or may never.

    "Many places have already legalized same sex marriage."

    The problem with this is that it means if nowhere legalized it then this argument would be moot. Some places have legalized it but the majority of countries have not and we will not see a majority in our lifetimes. If something is right, what the majority thinks doesn't matter. That is why the supreme court struck down inter-racial marriage bans even though only 20% of the population supported them. It is also why certain rights are inalienable and often placed in a bill of rights to remove them from politics and the reach of the masses.

    "Same sex marriage reflects lower divorce rates."

    This argument is ill advised. When gay divorce rates are above the national average then will it become an argument against gay marriage? Asians have the lowest divorce rate in the US, should all other races be banned from marriage because they have higher rates? It doesn't make sense. If commitment is worthwhile then permitting marriage encourages it. Without marriage then cohabiting arrangements are not as strong anyway and separation rates will be higher. What will happen is that gay divorce rates will soar after 7-8 years just like straight couples and because many do not have children i would speculate the rate will be higher than the national average. I'd say that divorce rates should be irrelevant and not because it doesn't suit me but because it is like punishing the innocent for the guilty. It's like saying you cannot sit an exam because too many people before you failed.

    One big area you did not mention is that marriage is beneficial to citizens and society. Denying it harms them.

  • Laura
    Lv 5
    7 years ago

    Yes it may be legal in 16 states but that doesn't mean the pastors in the churches in those states allow it. It can be legal but that doesn't stop the pastors and bishops from saying no.

    I only have one reason and only need one reason as to why it should be legal and that's because we are all human being and deserve the right to be happy although gay marriage being illegal doesn't mean we can't be happy with our partners so honey chill, even if it didn't get legalized it wouldn't be the end of the world. Society can't stop us from have same sex partners. Hope this helps

    Source(s): Was a gay guy now a straight girl
  • Kels
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    In fact herein the states the numbers accepting it are in the majority, and should be considered as part of our civil rights. In an abstract way that would be akin to a Caucasian, marrying someone of color, or two people of different religions marrying.

    Without going back through your lengthy details, it seems OK for straight couples to marry, have children and at times neglect, abandon, or abuse them???

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.