GAY MARRIAGES.   Term Paper ID:30363 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Argues against institutionalizing single-sex marriages.... More...

3 Pages / 675 Words 3 sources, 5 Citations, APA Format $12.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Argues against institutionalizing single-sex marriages. Discusses societal views on legally sanctioned homosexual union. Benefits and problems for single-sex partners. Civil inequality involved. Changes in marriage over the years. Need to protect traditional marriage. Denfense of current marriage laws. Dangers of widening the definition of marriage structure. Paper Introduction: This research provides a counterargument to advocacy of gay marriage. The research will set forth the cultural context in which the issue has arisen in recent years and then discuss reasons that prevent acceptance that institutionalizing gay marriage is either necessary to or desirable for the integrity or the benefit of American civil society. An Associated Press poll conducted in 2000 found that by a thin majority (51%), Americans are opposed to single-sex marriage; 34% are said to approve of such marriages, while 41% are said to approve of single-sex "domestic partnerships." More than 50% of the poll sample supported the rights of homosexual couples to receive insurance, Social Security, and inheritance benefits from their partners (Barillas, 2001). Numbers may not suit the strongest advocates of gay marriage, but significant segme Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Other states and theUS government have passed "defense-of-marriage" laws, which restrict legalmarriage to heterosexuals; the federal law specifically states that onestate need not recognize the legal validity of a homosexual civil unionsanctioned by another state (Sullivan, 2 1). Homosexual partnerships seem in a position of civil inequality akin toinequality of racial minorities in apartheid states. N., Jr. Retrieved from the World Wide Web 1 July 2 1, athttp://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=7662. In Vermont in 2 , civil unions between same-sex couples werelegalized, enabling same-sex couples to receive virtually all reciprocalrights and responsibilities of traditional marriage. If gay marriage may be structured as civil equivalent of traditional,then why may not other civil unions be privileged identically? Who would have thought, for example, that the First Amendment, aproduct of Enlightenment reason, could be stretched so far to privilege thepolitical benefits of those who, were their political views to prevail,would dispose of the First Amendment and the Constitution it rode in on?But mention Nazis and Skokie, and it does not take a genius to seecasuistry at work. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose husband signed the federaldefense of marriage law in the 199 s, is quoted to the effect that marriagehas "historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginningof time" and should remain between man and woman (Sullivan, 2 1, p. This research provides a counterargument to advocacy of gay marriage.The research will set forth the cultural context in which the issue hasarisen in recent years and then discuss reasons that prevent acceptancethat institutionalizing gay marriage is either necessary to or desirablefor the integrity or the benefit of American civil society. If, as seemslikely, same-sex marriage partners need not prove that their union isconjugal as well as civil, let us have domestic same-sexcelibate/companionate partnerships; between siblings/cousins (celibate ornot); partnerships absent domestic unity but in all other respects civilunions (often called joint ventures or business partnerships orcorporations). One basis foropposition cites the historical universality of marriage as an organizingprinciple of society and protection of (say) inheritance rights ofchildren. Poll shows continued opposition to gaymarriage. Bride prices, polygamy, compulsory dowries,child-marriage, parental authority over marriage are typically curiositiesin the West, though such customs survive in non-Western cultures. To deny the potential for marriage-structurecasuistry in service of juridical benefit or even fraud (especially whenhiding assets in a nasty divorce) is to ignore potential for exploiting theletter of a law to create a legal result that is antithetical to the law'sintent. In fact, marriage has changed since the beginning of time, just asattitudes toward slavery have. An Associated Press poll conducted in 2 found that by a thinmajority (51%), Americans are opposed to single-sex marriage; 34% are saidto approve of such marriages, while 41% are said to approve of single-sex"domestic partnerships." More than 5 % of the poll sample supported therights of homosexual couples to receive insurance, Social Security, andinheritance benefits from their partners (Barillas, 2 1). What sounds like articulation of equal access is actually afoundational wedge of civil chaos, an invitation to myriad frauds andobliteration of the protections of traditional marriage. Equality practice: liberalreflections on the jurisprudence of civil unions. Legal standing forcivil unions complicates an already problematic legal environment regardingsuch matters as property distribution on dissolution, inheritance,parentage, and kinship across multiple cohabitation partners, multipleheirs. Albany Law Review, 64,853. . immunity from testifying against their partners, if they choose to invoke it (Eskridge, 2 1). Those levels have been tested in US legislatures and courts in recentyears. As their details--not theirlegality--are litigated, watch them erode and subsume protections for thebeneficiaries of traditional marriage. Data Lounge. 18). If the definition of marriage is to widen, what are thelimits, and if there are none, how does that not destroy traditionalprotections of marriage? Were that not so, whence the competition betweendefense-of-marriage and gay-marriage constituencies that pushes otherpublic policy needs aside? Numbers may notsuit the strongest advocates of gay marriage, but significant segments ofsociety seem to have relatively high comfort levels with legally sanctionedhomosexual unions. References Barillas, C. (2 1, Spring). (2 , June 1). . Sullivan, A. (2 , May 8). State of the Union--Why "civil union" isn'tmarriage. The pointis that appeal to tradition is no answer to advocates of gay marriage:Marriage has changed; why not change it again? One need not oppose gay marriage conceptually to see that it hasalready upset governance. The New Republic, 36, 18. Eskridge, W. Consider Eskridge's (2 1) approval of Vermont's civil-union law, which "equalize[d] the benefits and obligations afforded same-sex couples and different-sex married couples." Eskridge cites 13 newrights same-sex civil-union partners obtained in Vermont, including: priority of inheritance if their partners die without wills, as well as legal capacity to hold property as tenants in the entirety . But that analysisoverlooks compelling reasons for opposing gay marriage. Why not is uncovered by attention to arguments of gay marriage/civilunion advocacy. Retrieved from the World Wide Web 1 July 2 1, athttp://128.48.12 .7/mw/mwcgi?sesid=64248 7632&ZS1.1|CM&CScs=1&Cdisplay. It is salad days yet for civil unions. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.