THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE POLICY

Abstract

The marriage of the same sex has come under fierce defense by those who consider it righteous and it gained momentum when some religions backed up. The societies we live today has been shaped by many deeds going on in the society and with the inception of policies everything we thought bizarre few decades ago is now in our laws and constitutions amendments have added a lot of weight to this. In 2013, the Supreme Court was forced to struck down some laws which forbade same-sex couples citing that the ban on the same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and since then the policies in favor of same-sex marriage keeps on being amended (In Swan, 2014).

Introduction

At first, anyone posing as defender and sympathizer of the same-sex relationship was seen as the mentally ill person who needs transformation, but in inside the already contentious realm of gay rights, one would not fail to notice that one of the most controversial focuses is the similar sex marriage. After the far-reaching litigation, the US courts of supreme have been forced to bow down and rule that same-sex marriage poses a fundamental right just like any other marriage accepted in the eyes of the law (Cahill & Tobias, 2006). Apparently, as a result of the ratification they have full legal right to marry and have recognition of their legal marriages as recognized in every state. The journey started for so many years since the early 1970’s when some fellows Minneapolis applied for a marriage license and the feedback they got was so traumatizing bearing in mind that this was just the inception of the first incident (Newton, 2009). The court held that the dictionary of the marriage was only between the opposite sex marriage and clearly from the judge ruling it looked even absurd to be considered (Gill, 2012). The gay people in each and every state have undergone some really prejudicing moments ranging routinely being persecuted and barred from any private and public employment since this was classified as mental illness (In Swan, 2014). Since then, many movements have come up in quest of championing the right of their sexuality and recognition from the public arena apart from their rights being factored in the constitution.

The policy has emerged courtesy of the people who have been fighting so long to see it being stopped from any radicalization which makes them look like a sect and group necessitating oust from the society. It is amazing how the quickly this situation has progressed in a manner that the society is now embracing it even though the percentage is still low just like the states which are now familiarizing with Gay rights (Newton, 2009). The last few decades has been dedicated to amazing strides in terms of laws protecting the gays and even to the extent of the lesbians, as well as social and cultural influences geared towards the acceptance. Consequently, the same-sex married people are seen as just a next door neighbor unlike few years ago why they were being sidelined as abnormal people (Newton, 2009). Of course, there have been people who have been fighting tooth and nail to see people who are wedded to their religious and personal prejudice to cease to exist; this is a threat to the institution of prejudice (Gill, 2012). Consequently, we can see the society has not changed its views on homosexuality until recently when the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. The people who opposed the same-sex marriage are quicker to use profanity, and blatantly willing to distort the truth from the mere fact which in any way cannot be related to the fight for the policy change in same-sex marriage. For a moment, the debate regarding the gay marriage seemed to be fading in the public eye until the sudden catapulting back in the headlines. Massachusetts has set the pace for other states since the decision in 2003 to allow gay and lesbian couples privileges to marry and the aftermath of it saw some other states issue the license to the gay marriages (Newton, 2009). Nonetheless, the determinations to hit the two-thirds target of majority hit low in the year 2004 and then again in 2006 to which it could have allowed amendment pass from both houses (In Swan, 2014).

Consequently, this type of union has had the significant impact on the society in a diverse number of ways, the positive and of the negative effects have all manipulated themselves into different shapes. The Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people have benefited from the legalized states and the nation as well has reaped its paybacks. Promotion of equality and Non-discrimination in the wider society is owed to the contribution of same couples triumph, talk of cultural, social, political and financial benefits (Gill, 2012). They are fundamental people in the society and no doubt they are linked to continued growth and evolution which the nation would considerably suffer a lot without them just like other people in the society. Such promotion has impressively helped in diminishing homophobia and affirming the minority groups which for the longest have been shelved. The group who otherwise they deserve the best from the society apart from the appreciation as fellow human being having rights, they have suffered and endured stigmatization (Cahill & Tobias, 2006). We have helped communicate the message of goodwill and help in plummeting intergroup prejudice and auxiliary cultural diversity. Notably, the States which has embraced the rights of LGBT has gained in term of economic and business opportunity courtesy of the marriage equality (Newton, 2009). This has seen the gay married partners move to this states where they are being appreciated and carrying along with them is their business empires and worthy ideas worth developing the economy within a span of short time compared to state which barred them. Additionally, the tourism industry will rise by the fact that gay couples will be visiting the State more preferably than the other opposing. It should be no surprise that in the current era more corporations are articulating for sustenance for the connubial parity and more so, stalk in indulgence of the same-sex married couples.

It is of huge benefit, if the laws gagging the same-sex marriage is awarded freedom so as to achieve their full potential life without the hindrances which amount to the huge waste of vital periods besides the crucial resources. The culmination of discrimination in marriage will aid in upholding psychosocial and physical welfare (In Swan, 2014). The debate about the rights and legalizing of the same sex marriage is gaining momentum in the public domain and we no longer hide the reality from those who tend to neglect the existing facts. This is fetched from the discourse of morality which goes in hand with religion, also the welfare of the children which many tantrums have been emanating from right left in a fight of how marriage is seen (Cahill & Tobias, 2006). The meaning of marriage has to involve procreation of children between two opposite sex but not adoption is what you would normally hear from the opponents. The argument that same-sex kind of marriage damages children on the reliance of scientific research, many argue that such proponents are far from the reality check (Newton, 2009). All the same, the perspective of conceptualizing the same-sex marriage debate greatly impacts the idea of which gay life is produced same as the lesbian marriage. When the issue only embraces the religious perspective, it tends to put the fact that also the courts have a say in this whole issue. Some argue that marriage is only restricted to heterosexual unions austerely just because of the biblical reliance and the teachings it comes with. As a result of this, we have seen many churches shift their long stood point of view that homosexuality is a sin, they are now leaning towards acceptance of same-sex marriages. In this same time, many have witnessed a complete shift of paradigm from those who have been known and at times confused being a sadist to social change in society (In Swan, 2014). The opinion polls also show a change whereby more of the populace are accepting the fact that gay marriages is here with us to stay. However, the impact that the media has had over this issue in the recent decade is overwhelming, the shift in the public domain is credited to the media houses and other platforms. At the end of the day, we must acknowledge that diversity approval is something which we cannot run from at least not for long.

The significance of acknowledging all this policy recognizing same marriage to the wider society has a lot of gains not only to the partners but the people so that they respect what the policy state in so doing the stigma and discrimination will tremendously reduce. Remember the benefits of the gay marriage policy introduction and the economic gain which no doubt it has elevated our understanding of acceptance of equality. The policy has come at the right time in which the world needs a change in perception and a wider look out of what diversity really means to the LGBT community (In Swan, 2014). Demeaning them the rights to have what they love is like taking away the precious thing in life which is the factor of love. To the group of people who see same-sex marriage as a sin, yes there would be change to some of the laws and the fact that error has no right hangs loose. For instance, some years back we conventional accepted slavery and there was no immorality leave alone dehumanizing of it so change is necessary for particular with the global shifts and social impacts with eventually needs change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

 

Newton, D. E. (2009). Gay and lesbian rights: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.

 

 

 

Gill, E. R. (2012). An argument for same-sex marriage: Religious freedom, sexual freedom, and public expressions of civic equality.

 

 

 

Cahill, S., & Tobias, S. (2006). Policy issues affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

 

 

 

Swan, W. (2014). Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights: A public policy agenda for uniting a divided America.