Table of Contents
Introduction
2
Man and Woman, Woman and Woman or Man and Man
4
Procreation or Not
4
Optimum Environment for Children
5
Gay Relationships are Moral or Immoral
5
Federal Law
6
President Obama
7
Politicians and Media Figures
8
Conclusion
10
Work Cited
10
Gay Marriage
Introduction
Gay marriage is also known as same sex marriage. Gay marriage is the union between two people with the same biological gender identity or same sex. This marriage is referred to by supporters of gay marriage as marriage equality. Same sex marriage has been opposed in many countries. However, in the midst of the opposition, some countries have legalized this marriage. On their basis of legalizing gay marriage, most countries have changed their marriage laws based on the need for equality. The constitutions guaranteed every citizen equal rights, thus on this basis court rulings have been in favor of gay marriage. Debates have ensued on the gay marriages and some nations have gone through ballot in a referendum to settle this matter. Therefore gay marriage to date remains a social, civil and a religious issue. As a result of the above, the legalization of gay marriages has varied from one jurisdiction to another (Balsam and Mohr, 310). Since 2000, the supporters of gay marriages have in testified their push for legal recognition, and this pressure has yielded results. Due to the persistent need to recognition and constitutional guarantee of equality, the supporter of same sex marriage have succeeded and reaped recognition in some countries. The jurisdictions and countries where gay marriages have been legalized include Denmark, Iceland, Portugal, Spain, Argentina, South Africa, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Belgium and Canada. These countries have either legalized same sex marriage as a nation and some as a sub jurisdiction.
The issue of the same sex marriage however has not settled yet, because in gay’s quest to get religious settling or civil ceremony, they have been opposed and rejected. However, in this opposition, some religious groups have agreed to preside on marriage equality weddings and support public gay marriage. Among the religion groups supporting gay marriage are United Church of Canada, Conservative Jews and Metropolitan Community Church. The Episcopalians, Native American, Quakers and Wiccans have also supported the same sex marriage. Studies done by Silver (para. 12) have indicated that same sex marriages are likely to become popular with the educated more than the illiterate people. Additional findings have revealed that, when compared with the old, younger people are more likely to support gay marriage. Moreover, recent studies by Price (10) have revealed that gay marriages are on the rise across all the sectors. It’s increasing among races, socio economic status, religions and ethnicities and across all the age groups. In addition, the findings also indicated that most countries are more willing to accept gay marriage today than they were in the early 2000s. With these increasing numbers gay marriage has raised eyebrows among many people who are in the opposing side. Indeed, some people are silently supporting gay marriages for fear of being banished from their communities and religion groups. In fact it is this reason that has brought division in some churches since some church members agree with the whole idea of gay marriages, whereas other members do not. Since the debate on the same sex marriage is a religious issue as well as a political and social issue, many people have been left out of place. Others have considered same sex as a civil right issue that must be given a listening ear. Others have also looked at it as a political issue that must not be ignored. Therefore, as a political issue this paper will establish the influence of gay marriage on American politics (Rotosky et al., 398).
Electorate Determinants
Same sex marriage has determined how the electorates vote in many parts of the United States. Those who are for the same sex marriage will definitely vote for the leader who supports gay marriage and vice versa with the leader whose views are different. However, in case the politician has got strong reasons for or against gay marriage his/her position can be compromised by the electorates depending on the reasons. Some of the reasons people have given against gay marriage which have gone a long way in determining the electoral positions include;
Man and Woman, Woman and Woman or Man and Man
Marriage being an institution which unites people of opposite gender, man and woman, many people have reasoned that it should only take place between man and a woman. They have also argued that this is established in the countries laws. However, may people still find it hard to appreciate the fact that marriage can occur between people of the same sex. This is because, there is no law which supports marriage for man and woman but not man and man or woman and woman. Thus people who are against same sex marriage based on this understanding have been outpaced and their reasoning has been received as a prejudice by the gay supporters. This means that as a politician, rejecting gay marriage based on the gender difference is not any hiding cocoon for not supporting same sex marriage. In fact, one must really be ready to explain vividly why not gay marriage yet there is no basis for settling on man and woman marriage. In fact the opponents of gay marriage will never vote such a person with this stand, since they see this as violation of their rights (Syzomoki and Carr, 48).
Procreation or Not
Again, politicians have lost votes for just declaring that marriage is for procreation. The proponents of gay marriage have found it hard to accept their stand on this issue. In fact they have raised questions like, why support marriage for procreation and support marriage for infertile couples who can’t give birth. The gay marriage proponents look at this as double standards which they are not ready to accept. In addition, after menopause people don’t give birth but they don’t give up on their marriages as established by gay proponents. Therefore, the basis which the opponents use to disown gay marriage on the point that marriage is for procreation is not there. In fact the same sex marriage proponents up today find it very hard to accept or to visualize why the gay opponents don’t tell the infertile couples who can’t give birth to give up the wedding ring. In fact the same wonder is still prevalent in their minds when it comes to why the opponents of gay marriage don’t chase after the partners in menopause.
Optimum Environment for Children
The opponents to same sex marriage have also hinted at the gay marriage as being in effective when it comes to bringing up a child. Studies by scientists have however disapproved these facts by revealing that children raised in gay marriages are straight. In their findings they have established that these children’s are just like those raised with the non gay families. However, what takes gay supporters with surprise is the fact that they are being looked down upon by the society when it come to raising children. However, they clearly don’t understand why thugs, robbers, murderers and assassins are allowed to bring up children. What same sex proponents want is equal recognition and not disapproval on worthless basis. In fact they see themselves as the best couples in giving love to the adopted child because; no any other child will come to compete with the ones adopted.
Gay Relationships are moral or Immoral
Some people have reasoned that gay marriage is against the morals of sacred marriage. However, this position is contested, because there is nowhere in the United States law where it is stated that gay marriage is immoral or illegal. If people base their judgments on the bible, then they are breaking the right on freedom of religion. In fact, looked at it in law terms, bible has got no position, or standing in the United States law. This is a position that has seen Thomas Jefferson being acknowledged for. Therefore, if the bible is not the basis through which the American democracy is based, it is baseless to judge gay marriage with it as the reference. In fact Buddhism celebrates and welcomes gay marriage, why don’t Christians basing their reasons against gay marriage consider this. Therefore, for any person who can stand and argue when their religion position is contested, shouldn’t be against gay marriage because in doing so the person will be compromising another religion, thus breaking the person’s freedom of religion.
Federal Law
With the above arguments same sex marriage has been found hard to accept and disown in equal measures. Federal government should have defined its position on gay rights, but up to 1996, the federal government had not established its position on this issue. Therefore, same sex marriage is not legally recognized by the feral government, but the states are at will to decide on their marriage systems through referendum. Because of this, states like Massachusetts, New York and New Hampshire have legalized gay marriages. Lowa, Maine, Vermont, Washington and Connecticut have also legalized the same sex marriage through states laws. The United States only passé DOWA, the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Also in the DOWA laws, it was established that states shouldn’t recognize gay marriage; however the above sates have contested this position. As at 2010, DOWA has been strongly challenged on its position against same sex marriage. In fact the federal court system has established to challenge this position of the federal government and outcomes are yet to be reached. States base their position on the fact that most aspects of marriage laws are under their jurisdiction.
President Obama
President Barrack Obama conceded on May, 2012, that after so many years of looking into same sex marriage issue, he found it acceptable for them to marry. However, the president was very clear on his position, but also allowing the sates to have their final say on the issue of gay marriage. In his quest for Illinois senate votes, Obama had declared his support for same sex marriage; however he hadn’t declared his stance in public. Therefore, of the America presidents, Obama became the first to publicly support same sex marriage. In the 1996 interview with the press, Obama stated that he can’t fight the supporters of the same sex marriage because he didn’t see the reasons why it should be prohibited. In 1998, however, Obama had identified himself as a Christian who believed in the marriage between man and a woman. Even though with this stance, Obama still supported the rights and freedom of the lesbians and gay people. Obama intensified his support for the same sex marriage by being against the DOWA and opposing federal mandate for being against the gay and lesbian marriages. Indeed, in 2008, Obama had opposed the California proposition 8 which had declared to ban gay and lesbian marriages. This is a position which Obama stood by and in 2010 through the White House website he declared is stance that he is in support of the civil rights and federal rights of the same sex married persons. Obama’s position on the issue is clearly political with the bargain of votes across the divide. For sure, Obama calculated his chance and position of supporting gay persons and realized that he had no option but to declare his support for the same sex marriage. Partly, the president wanted to establish is position and support for the same sex marriage as well as to convince voters from the proponents of same sex marriage. In addition, Obama’s position since his time as Illinois senator has been critical in his retention of the senator seat. Above all, Obama realized the need to support the rights and freedoms of the proponents of the same sex marriage, since this is one of the ways that he could win the voters heart by not declaring his stance in 2008 campaigns.
Politicians and Media Figures
Other politicians and public figures have sided with Thomas Jefferson on his view of equality. According to Thomas Jefferson, “if it neither breaks my legs, nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?” Szymanski and Carr (59). This is the same position that has been taken by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck when they exhibit their views on the same sex marriage. Rush Limbaugh established that it makes no difference on who you marry. Even though he appreciates the fact that many United States leaders have never publicly declared their position on this gay issue. This is why he was quick to disown Newt Gingrich speaker of house representative position when the speaker stated his opposition on the same sex marriage. Therefore, the position on the marriage has been contested for so many years. however, the position and stance depend on an individual and the Democrats and the Republicans have never stated their position on the issue. Additionally, public figures like Nancy Pelosi supported the Judge Walkers decision to rule in the favor of the gay persons. The politicians and public figures were in support of the walkers ruling in favor of the gay marriage, a ruling which ensured that the gay rights and freedoms are protected. The former vice president Sarah Pulin also stated his position on the gay marriage, when she stated that she is not in favor of it. However, as it stands from the discussion above, the position of gay marriage remains in the hands of the state and not individuals, thus individuals can give their views but can’t change the status.
Certainly, many leaders have realized that they have got little to add to the debate, so they rather shy off to avoid being overlooked by voters. Many politicians have therefore decided to remain reserved on this issue. The politicians for years have learnt that if they are to rebel on this issue they are going to lose on votes which they would otherwise have garnered by taking no sides. This is because once they accept the gay marriage they risk losing on votes from the opponents, whereas if they don’t support they will not get the votes from the gay persons. The gay marriage therefore has affected the American culture over time because politicians have learned to be coy on the issues that relate to this debate.
Politicians therefore have gambled with this issue of the gay marriage. Before president Obama publicly declared his stance in support of the gay people he didn’t want the gay to get married. However when the rights of the gay people were being overlooked in California he was the first to oppose such a move. This simply tells the politicians positions by being coy on this issue. In fact apart from the former vice president Sarah Pulin who declared her rejection of the gay marriages, many leaders before her have been very cautious on their support or opposition of the same sex marriages. They have intentionally done this to prevent them from losing votes.
The freedom for gay person has been questioned because many people and bodies have violated the culture of the United States by rejecting them. This shouldn’t be the case because they are people of equal right to freedom for religion and culture for expression. But since the gay persons have civil rights, democracy, individual freedom and voting rights the politicians have stayed mum by not publicly opposing their positions over the years. with the voting rights, the gay persons have been in position of following on their political agenda. They have the rights to vote for their freedom and the rights to vote against a leader who is not going to be equal and fair representative in their view. Thus, the politicians have been left with very little options. Thus a number of politicians, depending with the states where they are, they have supported or rejected the gay position (Berger, 70).
Conclusion
With the increasing number of gay persons, the political leaders are left with little options but to consider supporting gay rights and views. The numbers have increased from nearly 25% to 50% making the gay persons opinions and issues at the political limelight. Indeed it is these numbers that the president observed and opted to publicly declare his position on the gay marriage debate. Whichever way the gay persons have shaped the American political atmosphere, and politicians have been moved to take decisions to please them. In addition, the politicians have been unable to take their stance on critical issues which has not gone well with the country’s economy. For instance, due to the politicians inability to support the gay marriage, the country has constantly lost on economy since the gains that could have been attained by legalizing the marriage has been lost. Certainly, gay marriage has influenced and shaped the American politics (Rotosky et al., 400)1.
