On the outside looking in, it is rather apparent that there are two objectives in regards to gay marriage; those who say “green-light” and those who say “red-light”. In essence, when you consider the marriage battle between homosexuals and heterosexuals -- it’s like fire and ice; they both have the potential to overcome each other’s privileged power. “It’s this tug of war between whose gut feeling is better or morally correct that perpetuates the cycle of bitter feelings,” suggests David Myers , a spokesperson for gay rights (Myers & Scanzoni, 2005, p. 129). When we take into consideration the lenses model, you quickly notice that you have three parties – one that is for the institution of gay marriage, one that is against it, and one that is liaison between the both (the government). Those who say “green light” for gay marriage see themselves as being “ostracized by the other parties for wanting to belong” (Myers & Scanzoni, 2005, p. 13). Rather than being avoidant, this party finds it more promising to just promote “collaboration as they find an integrative solution that will satisfy both the other parties” (Hocker & Wilmot, 2007, p. 163). Meanwhile, those who say “red light” to gay marriage either see their counterparts (the “green lighters” and the government) as unmoral tradition breaking savages (Myers & Scanzoni, 2005, p. 113). They believe in that the perfect union in marriage as that of a heterosexual bases rather than a homosexual. The government on the other hand sees itself as the crowd pleaser. They are persuaded by the vote of the masses and see their part only as one who acts accordingly to the public interest.
Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (2007). Interpersonal Conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill. Myers, D. G., & Scanzoni, L. D. (2005). A Christian Case for Gay Marriage: What Gad has Joined Together. New York: HarperCollins.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document