Continuing Fight for the Right to Gay Marriage

Wednesday, April 28th marked the end of a three week long court battle in California between the opposition and supporters of Proposition 8 (The Californian Marriage Protection Act). Although the case made no real decisive action, it seems to have ended favorably for the opponents of Proposition 8. The court case battled on between two greatly uneven sides, with the proponents of Proposition 8 only calling in 2 witnesses, and the opposition calling 16.
During the case, one major issue discussed was the children of same-sex marriages. The opponents of Proposition 8 countered the claims of the defense with research that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as those from traditional marriages. Additionally, the opponents of Proposition 8 argued that the original ruling of the proposition was tainted by hatred and prejudice, and that such a ruling should not be allowed to stand. Furthermore, the defense of Proposition 8 seemed rather weak throughout the case, be it because of their lack of witnesses, or their continuous inability to bring up specific evidence, especially when specifically prompted to do so by the prosecution.
Altogether this court battle has ultimately furthered the cause of the legalization of same-sex marriage, and shown once again the weakness of the reasoning behind the opposition to same-sex marriage.
Original article: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/28/local/la-me-prop8-trial28-2010jan28/2

Weekly Update #3

This week, the three of us have written letters to members of the US Congress representing the state of Illinois in regards to our stand on same-sex marriage. I wrote my letter to Senator Roland W. Burris commending on his support for repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the US Armed Forces, and I suggested he should also push for same-sex marriage to be legalized in Illinois. Both issues deal heavily with civil liberties for homosexuals, and since Burris pursues one of them, I see no reason why he would not support the other. I have no clue when or if I will receive a response from our senator, but I trust that he will read my letter with great consideration. My best wishes also go for my fellow group members and their letters to Congresswoman Melissa Bean and Senator Dick Durbin.



On related news, President Obama's recent memo (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-hospital-visitation) with hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples is a huge step closer to allow same-sex marriage. These couples are clearly being more recognized as legitimate partners, which may give them stronger grounds to gain the same rights as "traditional" couples if they do choose to marry. Obama, like Burris, also wishes to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell; with a president that pushes for civil rights for homosexuals, same-sex marriage does not seem so far off anymore. Sweet.

Also, polls have been set up. Please answer as honestly as possible; we need the results as part of our research and presentation for next week. Thanx! <3

Our PSA's and Week 2 Blog

This week, we created our two PSA’s about supporting same-sex marriage. The first plays off the accurate metaphor that the push for homosexual equality mirrors that of the civil rights movement, and the issues of the civil war itself. Although we didn’t use any stats, the video was meant to introduce our stance and create some hype for our cause. The second video disputes greatly some of the fables surrounding gay marriage. First of all we showed how it is legal in more states to marry your own first cousin, then it is to marry someone of the same sex. People believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, but would they consider marrying your first cousin ok? If that is acceptable, what makes homosexuals so “wrong”? Next we tackled the idea that the debate against gay marriage is not fueled by religion. We showed that not only is the highest acceptance with those who do not identify with any religion, but that religions like Christianity and Islam have some of the lowest acceptance. We then took on the argument that gay marriages will; lead to heterosexual divorce increasing. This is clearly false, as gay marriage is more common today than ever and the heterosexual divorce rate has remained constant and even decreased a little. We got a lot of the information that followed from www. gaymarriage.lifetips.com. There was an instance in San Francisco, where they legalized gay marriage. Soon after nearly 4,000 gay couples were married there, in the resulting rush to take advantage of the opportunity. The State (California) intervened in the marriages and had them all voided. The resulting Supreme Court case ended in defeat for San Francisco. It’s this kind of injustice that we wanted to bring to light. How can it be just in any sense of the word to not only not allow a marriage, but strip someone of their married status? It’s disgusting really. The website makes another point that divorce rates have clearly been on the decline since 1980, when they were as high as 80% within the first decade of marriage. Now these numbers have gone down to as much as 30% by 2002. That’s quite a drop, one that does nothing to explain how the increased support of gay marriage is “ruining marriage” for heterosexual couples. It just goes to show how these myths about gay marriage are surrounded by more speculation and fear, then any actual evidence.

-source used- http://gaymarriage.lifetips.com/cat/64319/gay-marriage-facts-statistics/index.html

Same Sex Marriage Psa 2

Same Sex Marriage Psa 2

Same Sex Marriage PSA 1

Introduction to Our Argument

Our Goal is to make a compelling, secular, argument for the allowance and tolerance of same sex marriages. Although a large part of the arguments are taking place in terms of religion and The Bible, we are trying to get behind the true political reasoning as to why banning same sex marriage is wrong. The battle can not be won on the religious field, but politically it is hard to argue that separating someone based on sexual preference from a now political institution (marriage), is wrong. Obviously marriage is not all politics, but it does allow for certain perks, that can not be denied to someone just because they have chosen a partner of the same sex. That being said, the first article I looked at was from NoGayMarriage.com, which gives a list of reasons why allowing gay marriage will ruin society. There is a lot of religious talk that I will try and ignore, but there was some social commentary that we find misleading. He discussed that allowing gay marriage will result in a loss of preference for heterosexual couple in adoption. This doesn’t actually seem like an issue, because why should a good family looking to adopt be denied simply based off their sexual preference? There is no reason to give special preference to a family, just because they have a “traditional marriage”. The main deciding factor should be that the baby goes to a good home. Also the author fears that children will be exposed to homosexual characters in their children stories, which could confuse them sexually. While the debate about homosexuality being “a choice” has yet to be determined, exposing children to homosexuality isn’t a bad idea. Would a child not be more confused if it grew up without being exposed to homosexuality and then encountered it in their teens (the primary age for development in sexuality)? If you expose children to things earlier on, then they will be better suited to confront and formulate their own opinions on the topic. This will not promote our kids growing up “gay”, but growing up tolerant, and as a result, better people. The final point I wish to address is the argument that allowing same sex marriage will result in so many divorces that the institution will be diluted into little more than a form of identification, like a driver’s license. This is a clear over-exaggeration, but his point is made; homosexual marriages do have a higher divorce rate. The real argument is, what does that have to do with heterosexual marriage? Just because homosexuals can marry and, as a result, divorce that does not mean that heterosexual marriages will have to follow in the same footsteps. If a heterosexual man leaves his wife to marry a man, which would be legal in this scenario, then that man was never truly heterosexual. The point is that its not going to “turn people gay” it will simply allow for equal marital status.

-Source Used- http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp