school assignment- gay marriage

Arieana Croom

Professor Yun

English 2

2 May 2013

Gay Marriage: Conservative For It

In this article Ted Olson, a lifelong republican, defends the rights for gays and lesbians to marry under the law. He acknowledges these opposing opinions and easily refutes them with some common sense thinking. He starts off with defending that allowing gay and lesbians to marry only “promotes the values that conservatives prize”.  Their whole goal for marriage is to have stable bonds, families, partners contributing to society and to our economy, and most importantly a loving household. Gays and lesbians are more than capable of creating this, and have proved so throughout history.  Olson states time and time again that no matter what the argument is against homosexual marriage, that it always derives with the same solution, it is unconstitutional to ban these people from marriage under our constitution and against what our forefathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence. Olson quotes Abraham Lincoln, “our forefasthers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”.  It is clear cut in our constitution that discrimination and deprivation of our unalienable rights should not be deprived.

Olson acknowledges that some states do have homosexual marriage legal under certain state laws, but he calls for a national change in the ways we are treated. “The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional”.  He notes that yes, marriage has traditionally been held strictly between a man and a woman. And while the supreme court has always regarded our rights to marry in that notion, “the underlying rights and liberties that marriage are not in any way confined to heterosexuals”.

Californias unjust decision to ban gay and lesbians from marrying is described as “a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community”.  Olson argues that regardless of what we choose to admit to ourselves and others that homosexuals have always been in our neighborhoods, our workplace, and hell, even in our churches. We have yet to destroy or be unfavorable to anyone else. We have and always will be a part of our communities. As a society we have grown more tolerant, understanding, and accepting. These arguments for tradition seem to be a bunch of nonsense. It is tradition that gays and lesbians have been parts of creating our societies, and telling us otherwise is telling us that our relationships are less important, less loving, and less meaningful than those of heterosexuals.

Olson tackles the argument of procreation. The argument being that if the laws allow us to be married that we will “dilute, diminish, and devaluate this goal”.  Olson states the most common sense rebuttal to this. Gays and lesbians are still not procreating in the “traditional” way. That just because it is open for us to marry doesnt mean any more or any less heterosexuals will conceive children. Lifting the ban on marriage is not going to all of a sudden turn heterosexuals into gays and lesbians against their will, or brainwash them into liking the same sex. The fact is that the procreation argument, to me, is such a joke. Like Olson said it cannot be taken seriously. He notes that we dont ask whether heterosexuals are even planning on marrying, or if they can conceive for that matter. We allow elderly people to marry, prisoners, and any other people with no intention of conceiving marry with no questions asked.

Lets face it, us gays aren't ruining marriage, or the sanctity of it. People like Kim Kardashian, and Britney Spears are, yet they are free to marry for 52 hours, or 72 days, and then continue the patterns. The ridiculous argument that it could be so harmful for me to marry my girlfriend is disgusting. When people like that are unfit to be parents and don't take marriage seriously are free to marry and divorce as many times as they want. When Olson asked the judge in one of his cases what the possible harm this could do to heterosexuals, he honestly answered that he could not think of one.

“Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspiration”. Even these religious people who think it is an abomination, demon possession, morally bankrupt, a sentence to hell and damnation, and utterly unacceptable, etc., the list can go on and on, have to acknowledge and not warrant the unequal treatment. Whether religious people want to admit it or not, science has proven their theories wrong. People  are in fact born homosexual, just as much as everyone else is born heterosexual. Just as the constitution protects religion, it also protects others from forcing their views on us. “I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation”.

The argument that it is just too soon is easy to refute simply because all of the states that have made laws protecting certain rights that homosexuals have. The only step that needs to be further taken is the national equality of marriage. Not long ago we had to banish interracial marriage, and segregation in schools. It almost seems inconceivable that its was less than a hundred years ago our country was fighting these equality issues. To see how far we have come as a country only promotes that creating all around equality is for the greater good. “How lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity”. I see no reason that I should be forced to be a second class citizen.

           Part 2

I think in question one I made my stance pretty clear. My reaction to California's ban on homosexual marriage was obviously one of disgust. The fact that in this day and age I, as well as every other member of the LGBT community are in fact not equal to the heterosexuals in our state is heartbreaking ast best. The man my uncle has spent the last 6 years with, and himself cannot legally be married because of these nonsense laws. I’m nowhere near the maturity for marriage, but its sad to know people you love, friends and my uncle, who cannot marry the people they love because of the close mindedness of these people. If I wanted to marry my girlfriend tomorrow I should have every right to do so. My own pursuit of happiness, as well as many dear to me, have been denied for no legitimate reason.