Gay Marriages And National Right - Essay Example

Gay Marriages and National Right Introduction The term gay refers to the sexual orientation where two people of the same sex are sexually attracted to each other. Gay marriage is therefore, defined as the sexual union between members of the same sex. Like other forms of marriages, it may be marked by either religious or secular ceremonies. The issue of sexual orientation and sexual affiliations has raised mixed emotions among the public, from diverse sexual orientations not only in American but also across other nations. Gay marriage has not been an exception to this. In fact, it has been made the center for political affiliation by members of the public (Quinn and Erica 167). Explained by social and medical scientists, same sex marriage has been attributed to both biological and social causes. But the point of concern is on whether or not this social right issue is a nationwide concern. Looking at it from a gendered perspective, it may be termed gender equality right campaign because it affects people of a specific “gender”, that is same sex oriented couples and therefore, it is not necessarily a nationwide issue. On the other hand, the implementation of a law encouraging same sex marriages will inevitably cause an impact on the social, religious, moral, health and other issues in the society. In order to effect such a change in society, we need to understand the manifestation of the issue and the extent to which legalizing the matter would lead to affect the social wellbeing of members of society (Liptak 4). Body paragraphs In his article of 26th June, 2015 in the New York Times, Adam Liptak presents various issues highlighting the positive and negative impacts of the judicial move to legalize gay marriage. Justice Kennedy, argues that the ideals in any marriage, whether gay or not, are the most important values which every individual should be given legal access to. His argument further explains that denying them access to gay marriage also reduces both their self-worth and confidence. On the other hand, Justice John G Robert claims that much as the plaintiffs celebrate their victory, they need to acknowledge that it is not in any way associated with their constitutional rights as citizens but rather a fulfillment of their desire (Liptak 7). Supporting John G. Roberts, Justice Scalia claimed that gay marriage is a self-centered interest of the few. Moreover, he stated that support of gay marriage has been championed through the use of appealing phrases which are baseless. Justice Kennedy’s view is that social change is inevitable and it comes as we gain more knowledge and experience in life. His point is premised on the fact that the proponents of constitutional rights did not have a complete understanding of all human rights and their dimensions and therefore, their proposition much as it is helpful is at times prone to changes. He further argues that the essence of marriage is to raise children. According to Kennedy, this obligation will be hampered if gay marriage is not legalized (Liptak 4). He explains that children of same sex parents suffer stigmatization when they realize that their families are somehow inferior. This even worsens when they attribute any preferential treatment against them to their parent’s sexual orientation. For years, the marriage laws have existed and served humanity, Justice Roberts asked, what reason would be sufficient to change such a doctrine? Justice Alito saw the impending danger of legalizing gay marriage as this would be used to criticize those who are of a contrary opinion. This change would also impact on the religious institutions and Justice Roberts was quick to point out that this change would affect the religious institutions, their belief and doctrines and therefore, it would not be readily welcomed. He continues to say that the new gay marriage would lead to undermining of religious doctrines. When made legal, the new law is likely to be used to eliminate any form of opposition including religion. Justice Scalia also argued that declaring it legal would be a threat to the democracy of America. Yet Justice Kennedy was quick to respond by saying that. The position of the champions of gay rights within democratic process has nothing to do with legalization of the matter by the Supreme Court (Bazelon 9). He later on said that it is their democratic right as citizens to enter into marriage. There have also been arguments for the gay marriage on the accounts that it provides the children raised within such marriages a chance to be raised by two parents. Psychologists are of the opinion that psychological gratification is achieved within the institution of marriage regardless of their sexual orientation. This means that a marriage union would last longer given that each spouse feels satisfied within the union. Research has revealed that the institution of marriage enhances social stability and it is not true that introduction of gay marriage will lead to social instability. It is believed that for any marriage union to thrive, the couple must be guided by the necessary moral principles of love, trust, commitment and sacrifice. This means that regardless of the sexual orientation, a couple could make their family union stronger by upholding these standards. Again it would be termed denial of democratic rights to those who are sexually attracted to people of the same sex if their marriage is not legally recognized. Homosexuals have the right and freedom as citizens to choose whom to marry (Quinn and Erica 162). Restricting marriage to heterosexuals is preferential treatment that will eventually lead to discriminatory practices. They also suffer discrimination given that the law does not recognize their marriage. It is such discriminatory edicts that pave way for the manifestation of other discriminatory practices. For instance, there is a higher probability of denying them access to resources and even government services if they are perceived to be criminal by practicing gay marriage. This is seen where they are denied benefits through a federal law. They are also likely to suffer from stigma as a result of such preferential treatment (Stewart-Winter 17). However, it is important to note that legally recognizing their marriage would have several social implications including the following. They are likely to use this position to undermine those who have alternative sexual orientations and affiliations. This would ultimately lead to social rift between the two sexual affiliations. Such rift may be manifested in our social institutions and later on affect our children. It is true that we may not notice all injustice seven as they happen right before our eyes. This fact is premised on our social orientation of the perceived issue at hand. The children raised in such marriages may have confused or misguided sexual orientations. This is because; they would want to be affiliated to their parents and at the same time fit within the social context of their peers who may have a different sexual affiliation. Their development would be hampered by this phenomenon and issues of stigma and eventually withdrawal in states which do not legally recognize gay marriages (Quinn and Erica 148). Conclusion A question still lies unanswered, is gay marriage a nationwide human right? The answer to this question lies not only in the reaction of the public upon the declaration of its legality but also in the way this matter is analyzed. If it is perceived as another party’s problem, then addressing it would be difficult. Changing the people’s perception of the issue at hand would be the most effective way of dealing with the opposition we are likely to experience in the attempt of making gay marriage legally acceptable (Stewart-Winter 9). From the analysis, we realize that marriage has both positive and negative impacts on social stability. The issues of morality, religion, health, social acceptance among other issues that may bring controversy in the event that this change is effected in any country need to be addressed prior to effecting the change (Quinn and Erica 160). This will enable create a receptive environment where the majority can readily welcome the ideology with little or no resistance. It is therefore, important to acknowledge the fact that achieving social stability is not easy especially on such grave matters. In order to effectively bring change to the society, we need to critically analyze the impact of effecting such changes on the social, economic and political spheres of our society. Legalizing gay marriage has both negative and positive impacts consequences. We need to ensure that we do not implement a change is cannot be sustained. In this regard, making gay marriage a legal affair would demand social structures that will mitigate the negative impacts. The realization of this social change needs critical understanding of its manifestation and its dimensions. This knowledge is important in ensuring that we are capable of implementing sustainable change within our society. There is need to perceive the issue at hand from a neutral stand point and with empathy as this will create an in-depth understanding of the problem to be addressed. Effecting changes on matters as critical as sexual orientation is likely to attract mixed reactions from the public including the opposition. In order to avert this opposition, there is need to create public awareness. Furthermore, conducting a social impact assessment would prove very important in determining the consequences that are likely to occur and avoiding them. Works Cited Bazelon, Emily. Was This The Right Way To Legalize Gay Marriage?. Nytimes.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2015. Liptak, Adam. N.p., 2015. Web. 4 Dec. 2015. Quinn, Therese, and Erica R. Meiners. "From Anti-Bullying Laws and Gay Marriages to Queer Worlds and Just Futures." QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking 1 (2013): 149-175. Stewart-Winter, Timothy. The Price Of Gay Marriage. Nytimes.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2015. Read More