THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE POLICY

Introduction

The U.S Supreme Court had a ruling that States cannot be allowed to ban marriage relationship between the same sexes. This was after a huge extent of consultation with the public on the definition of marriage and what the limits are, eventually the law allowed the union of both sexes. At first, anyone posing as defender and sympathizer of the same-sex relationship was seen as the mentally ill person who needs transformation (Cahill & Tobias, 2006). Apparently, as a result of the ratification The State of Minnesota have full legal right to marry and have recognition of their legal marriages (Ward, 2008. 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 the championing the right of their sexuality recognition in the same marriage. The same-sex couple may practice the essential factual to marry and live peacefully without any discrimination. Proponents of permissible matrimony resist that the ban of people involving in same-sex marriage is unfair and undemocratic and they ought to reap all the paybacks relished by dissimilar-sex couples.

In colleges we have witnessed several scenes where kissing between same-sex partner is just a norm, this extent to the campus parties too (Gayle, 2006). In fact, national data in regards to the same sex show that fewer people are able to identify themselves with as gay or lesbian more than the sexual attraction to the same sex (Ward, 2008). Consequently, black men on the question of gay marriage are seen as the new subculture whereby masculinity in confused and taken as a blend of hyper-heterosexuality backgrounds hence rendering them gay (Ward, 2008). The fact that, there exist an argument that the lines between queerness and normalcy featured by sexual does and identities than any artistic practices and revelatory frames. In the state of Minnesota, 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 (Ward, 2008). 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 in particularly the state of Minnesota. 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 (Ward, 2008). 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 (Gayle, 2006). Consequently, we can see the society has not changed its views on homosexuality until recently when the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Minnesota. 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. Minnesota 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 (Ward, 2008). 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. 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 (Gayle, 2006). 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 State which has embraced the rights of LGBT has gained in terms of economic and business opportunity courtesy of the marriage equality (Ward, 2008). 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 in Minnesota State 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 an 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 just like in Minnesota. 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 (Ward, 2008). 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 changes whereby more of the populace are accepting the fact that gay marriages are 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 of Minnesota 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 conventionally 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

 

 

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

Gayle Rubin “Thinking Sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality,” in Culture, society and sexuality: A reader, edited by Richard Parker and Peter [Chapter 9] (2006)

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

Jane Ward, “Dude Sex: White Masculinities and ‘Authentic’ Heterosexuality Among Dudes who have sex with dudes,” Sexualities 11 (2008): Page 414-434