Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage: With Liberty and Justice for All?
At a time where a procedural republic is present, gay marriage is an issue that does not satisfy the ideal of liberty as self-choosing and unencumbered. However, this concern has become one of the most controversial subjects today because it violates the first amendment, which is the right of the people to peaceably assemble. How are homosexuals supposed to assemble for their cause if they are threatened with violence? Homosexuality is the real problem in the eyes of many and anything relating to this topic is immediately cast down. Because homosexuals are a minority, their rights cannot be advocated because their lifestyle is not part of the dominant culture. The government is supposed to bracket morality issues and remain objective on topics like gay marriage, but for some reason this is not happening. Administrations are able to get away with using their religious and moral backgrounds to set certain laws in place, remaining unjust. The issue of gay marriage is not homosexuality in itself but an individual 's right to choose whom they want to marry. Considering that heterosexual marriage is protected by the courts thus demonstrating autonomy, it would make sense that homosexual marriage should be protected under the same premise. In Bowers v. Hardwick, the court ruled, "no connection between family, marriage, or procreation on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated." What exact connections need to be made in a courtroom so that homosexuals can have the same marital rights as heterosexuals? From a voluntarist perspective, people should have the right to choose their own personal relations regardless of sexual orientation, and should not have to prove similarities between heterosexual marriages.1 We live in a society that is based on our rights to choose ends that satisfy our means as long as we are not physically harming another person. The act of gay marriage is
At a time where a procedural republic is present, gay marriage is an issue that does not satisfy the ideal of liberty as self-choosing and unencumbered. However, this concern has become one of the most controversial subjects today because it violates the first amendment, which is the right of the people to peaceably assemble. How are homosexuals supposed to assemble for their cause if they are threatened with violence? Homosexuality is the real problem in the eyes of many and anything relating to this topic is immediately cast down. Because homosexuals are a minority, their rights cannot be advocated because their lifestyle is not part of the dominant culture. The government is supposed to bracket morality issues and remain objective on topics like gay marriage, but for some reason this is not happening. Administrations are able to get away with using their religious and moral backgrounds to set certain laws in place, remaining unjust. The issue of gay marriage is not homosexuality in itself but an individual 's right to choose whom they want to marry. Considering that heterosexual marriage is protected by the courts thus demonstrating autonomy, it would make sense that homosexual marriage should be protected under the same premise. In Bowers v. Hardwick, the court ruled, "no connection between family, marriage, or procreation on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated." What exact connections need to be made in a courtroom so that homosexuals can have the same marital rights as heterosexuals? From a voluntarist perspective, people should have the right to choose their own personal relations regardless of sexual orientation, and should not have to prove similarities between heterosexual marriages.1 We live in a society that is based on our rights to choose ends that satisfy our means as long as we are not physically harming another person. The act of gay marriage is
Cited: Herek, Gregory, "Hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay and bisexual adults," Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(2): 195-215. Sandel, Michael J., Democracy 's Discontent. Cambridge: First Harvard University Press, 1996.