Arguing for the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage - Essay Example

Arguing for the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage Future historians exploring the political, social, and legal developments in the United States will likely recognize the debate over the legal and social acceptance of same-sex marriage as one of the most crucial issues of national policy of the new millennium. Marriage involves very essential individual and state wellbeing and has a revered standing, both due to what it stands for and due to the significant gains to which individuals acquiring that standing are permitted.

The value of the institution of marriage for society has been viewed as the obligation of prudent policymakers, the obligation to institute the guidelines legitimizing marriage. Hence, it is not unexpected that the bid to legally recognize civil unions of same-sex marriage is and will persist to be the target of extensive and fierce public debate. Marriage means a lot of things for the human society. It is a major decision that is made by infatuated couples. In reality, a lot of people regard their partner preference the most vital decision they ever make.

Civil union is a permissible access to a large number of benefits, responsibilities, and securities, which most cannot be duplicated in any other means. Ultimately, marriage is the language where in ‘average’ individuals talk of life stages, self-sacrifice, commitment, family, and love. It is the language of equality, fairness, and love. Diane J. Savino, in the New York State Senate, argued that (from1:45 to 2:00 in the video) that marriage should be granted to sane homosexual couples who want to legally tie their bonds.

Marriage is all about respect, love, and understanding. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be legally recognized. I agree to the arguments of stated in the video. Possibly the most essential feature of marriage is that it binds a social and legal affiliation which makes it simpler for couples to be there for each other, psychologically, emotionally, and financially. Since homosexuals cannot marry, it is extremely challenging for them to help and support each other in times of crisis. The weight of decision-making and support usually plunges in the shoulders of other relatives when it should be placed on one’s spouse.

Thus, it is not reasonable to deny these benefits of marriage to homosexual couples who want to stay together and experience and deal with challenges together. If I will be given a chance to ask Diane J. Savino three profound questions about the issue, I will ask her (1) how is it possible to reconcile the standpoints of the State and Church about same sex marriage; (2) what are the possible consequences of the legalization of same-sex marriage; and (3) if you are a homosexual and a devoted Christian, would you still fight for your legal rights to marry or would you abide by the law of God?

The State and the Church will never agree on issues of morality and definition of marriage, as it has been for centuries. Hence, policymakers should choose only one of the two, matrimony or civil unions. The legalization of same sex marriage may destabilize the authority of the Church and thus encourage people, even devoted Christians, to deviate further from religious norms. So, if I am a homosexual and a devoted Christian at the same time, I will prefer civil union over ‘genuine marriage.

’ Nevertheless, equality before the law ought to imply that recognizing ‘genuine marriage’ for ‘average’ people will result in ‘genuine marriage’ for homosexual couples as well. References New York State Senate. ‘Diane J. Savino: The Case for Same Sex Marriage’ TED (Filmed Dec. 2009): http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/diane_j_savino_the_case_for_same_sex_marriage.html