Three Reasons Against Government Sanctioned Gay Marriage Essay

Pages: 5 (1565 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 6  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Junior  ·  Topic: Women's Issues - Sexuality

¶ … Against Government Sanctioned Gay Marriage

government presently considers same-sex marriages to be immoral and thus does not support the act. The authorities are reluctant to accept that the concept of marriage can be applied when two persons of the same biological sex want to. Also, issues related to same-sex marriages are owed to various other factors, such as tradition and religion. Being against same-sex marriages can be considered to be discrimination. It violates human rights through its homophobic character and it is actually not very different from earlier interdictions set by the government, which involve interracial marriages. It is not the government's job to categorize which acts are moral and which are not, as its job is to guarantee the rights of its citizens.

Marriage is a social union that endows series of benefits to those who undergo the process. Without being able to be legally married, same-sex couples are denied a series of advantages. If two people of the same-sex are not given permission to marry, they will be unable to perform several basic tasks related to accessing a partner's insurance, making hospital visits and having the right to make medical choices for each other. (Lewin, 1998, p. 2) Preventing same-sex marriages from happening would repudiate a great deal of benefits which come along with the legal contract.Download full Download Microsoft Word File
paper NOW!

TOPIC: Essay on Three Reasons Against Government Sanctioned Gay Marriage Assignment

The case of Willamina Wallace and Murron McGregor is a perfect example of how a gay couple is discriminated by the U.S. government. The two women had been living together for fourteen years and despite that they have had several attempts to legalize their union, they could not because of the law. At the time when McGregor learned that she had a severe form of lymphoma, the two women pressed their case in front of a state court, with the intention of making Wallace entitled to receive her partner's life insurance policy. Unfortunately, they had to face Justice Antonin Scalia in their efforts, and, because of his homophobic nature, it had been impossible for their lawyer to win the case. (Murdoch; Price, 2001, p. 521) Obviously, the fight for the legalization of same-sex marriages is not an easy one, with its supporters having to go against laws imposed by some of society's most influential actors.

The American justice system is using marriage as a mean to present heterosexual couples with a series of financial of civil advantages while laughing in the faces of gay and lesbian couples who cannot legally say "I do." Numerous people consider that the most important choice that one gets to make during his or her lifetime is the one where they choose their partner. Marriage is a symbol for many things in today's society, but it mainly represents a social union between two people that are in love.

The federal antimarriage law issued by the government in 1996 is proof that the government is determined to prevent same-sex marriages. The "Defense of Marriage Act," as it is referred to, stated that the government would present married couples with about 1049 ways through which they are provided with special status (Wardle; Strasser; Duncan; Orgon Coolidge, 2003, p. 4). This also means that the government refuses to grant 1049 benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

Certain people consider that marriage is not important, and that two people love each other, the legal contract should be of no importance to them. This is partially true, but it is also wrong when taking into consideration the fact that the government is ignorant toward same-sex couples, as it considers that they should not be permitted to declare their relationship and their place in society. If one were to ask a gay couple why they want to marry, they would probably provide the same answer as a heterosexual couple would.

It would be imprudent to claim that the American public looks forward to the legalization of same-sex marriages. However, this does not mean that it disagrees with the act, or that it would not accept its legalization. The government has gradually changed its opinions in regard to same-sex unions, but it still has troubles getting over the topic of marriage. Several countries in Europe have expressed their support toward same-sex marriages by legalizing the act, creating a precedent and influencing others to change their legislations (Wardle; Strasser; Duncan; Orgon Coolidge, p. 4).

A number of countries have replaced the marriage status with one called civil union, which basically means the same thing, only that it presents same-sex couples with fewer benefits than the ones given along with getting married. Most people are normally inclined to quit lobbying for a certain matter once they receive a number of benefits, which, in spite of the fact that represents less than what they initially wanted, wins them over. Governments claim that marriage and civil union is basically the same thing, but that same-sex couples should only be allowed to unite under the act of civil union (Wardle; Strasser; Duncan; Orgon Coolidge, p. 157). If there are no differences between marriages and civil union, than same-sex people ought to be permitted the right to get married.

The people that are against same-sex marriages usually motivate their convictions through the claim that it is not biologically normal for two persons of the same sex to marry, given the fact that they cannot procreate. However, if one were to look deeper into the problem, they would find that marriage has little to do with procreation. As long as marriage is perfectly normal in the cases of heterosexual people who cannot procreate, it would mean that there should be nothing wrong with same-sex couples that want to make their union official.

In its endeavor to keep same-sex marriages with their present status, the government has employed a great deal of scholars who are meant to come up with a series of logical reasons that support the theory that homosexuals should not be given the right to marry. The best that they were able to come up to are unjustified concepts, such as the fact that same-sex marriages increase the risk of people getting sexually transmitted diseases, and that those children who have homosexuals for parents will not be able to become conscientious adults (Wardle; Strasser; Duncan; Orgon Coolidge, p. 98). It is partially true that American children that are presently parented by homosexuals suffer. However, their suffering is not owed to the sexual affinities of their parents, but to the fact that their parents are being denied the right to get married. "As the Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in its historic decision, "It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of state benefits because the state disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation." But that's exactly what happens every day to families who don't enjoy the protection of marriage" (Boykin, 2004) Marriage brings along various tax deductions and can provide a family with financial assistance (Lewin, p. 211).

Just a few decades ago, the American society thought that it is immoral for interracial marriages to occur. This is a mere example of the fact that the laws imposed by the government are not necessarily good. Just as they do in the present with regard to same-sex marriages, conservatives were certain that legal unions between two persons from different races would damage the institution of marriage. At the time when the government put an end to the illegality of interracial marriages, the Supreme Court of Justice motivated their verdict through the discriminatory character that the law had. (Murdoch; Price, p. 520)

A number of people claim that there is nothing discriminatory about the fact that gay marriages are not legal. They believe that the government gives homosexuals the same rights that it gives to everyone else, and, that… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Download full paper (5 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Gay Marriages Should Not Be Legalized Term Paper

Against Proposition 8 California's Proposition 8 Passed Essay

Legalizing Gay Marriage Research Paper

Argumentative Synthesis on Gay Marriage Research Paper

Homosexuality Intolerance Research Proposal

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Three Reasons Against Government Sanctioned Gay Marriage" Essay in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Three Reasons Against Government Sanctioned Gay Marriage.  (2010, May 1).  Retrieved September 26, 2021, from

MLA Format

"Three Reasons Against Government Sanctioned Gay Marriage."  1 May 2010.  Web.  26 September 2021. <>.

Chicago Style

"Three Reasons Against Government Sanctioned Gay Marriage."  May 1, 2010.  Accessed September 26, 2021.