thesis statement for research paper on same sex marriage

A Case Study: Extending Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples

• First Online: 15 February 2023

Cite this chapter

• Federica Liveriero 17  

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Politics - Critical Explorations ((PPCE,volume 24))

90 Accesses

My goal in this chapter consists in testing the applicability of my general paradigm against a case study: the political and legal conflict over the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. This case constitutes a paradigmatic example of a public conflict arising around the attempt to revise the public interpretation of a normative concept, when a stable and shared agreement over such a concept has been historically and contextually established and has been taken for granted for a very long time – at least by members of dominant groups. The battle over marriage equality involves a public debate over the opportunity of proceeding with a re-conceptualization of the legal concept of marriage to make this practice more inclusive. There are two normative perspectives that are relevant for dealing with this case study. First, it is important to illustrate the power dynamics at play for determining control of the symbolic characterization of the public space, specifically underscoring that this political struggle for the extension of a particular right implies, more extensively, fighting for full citizenship, to wit, equal visibility and equal membership within the public space. Second, it is fundamental to analyze the literature concerning legal litigation around this case and to investigate the adjudication function that the judicial system can at times successfully play. Finally, I shall illustrate the Italian case concerning the institution of civil unions for same-sex couples. Specifically, I will evaluate whether such a political compromise can be considered an acceptable second-best solution and if so, why.

Democracy is thus another version of Neurath’s boat, repairing itself at sea. The normative constraints that do apply are freighted with the contingent history of such self-corrections and revisions. While constitutions act as the formal framework for collective agents and the distribution of decision powers, almost all contain provisions for their amendment. James Bohman ( 2006 : 183) The entire purpose of civil rights is that everyone gets them even if the majority does not approve, particularly when they don’t approve. R. Claire Snyder ( 2006 : 69)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states at Article 16: “(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” See on the Unites Nation website: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

I think that is useful to assume, as proposed by Roberto Casati ( 2011 ), that the first role of philosophy, as a social and intellectual practice, is to provide successful conceptual negotiations. “My position with regard to the general role of philosophy is that philosophy, as a theory, does not look for the truth of the world directly; rather it explores various alternatives that allow us to reframe the world in ways that are fruitful for our general negotiation-oriented goals,” Casati ( 2011 : 158; translation from Italian by the author). This general account of philosophy is very well suited for my paradigm of liberal legitimacy, according to which a loose background framework, constituted by liberal organizing ideas, ideals and evaluative standards, undergoes constant public negotiation processes over adequate interpretations of this framework in relation to different contexts and historical moments.

Political attempts to redescribe political conflicts over equal recognition simply in terms of distributive clashes imply a diminishment of the normative urgencies of these demands. For this reason, these attempts should be contrasted and the surreptitious aim, that is, to find a strategy to misguide the equal recognition demand, ought to be publicly exposed. A concrete example of this strategy can be found in the debate that took place in Italy prior to the vote in the Senate about the bill proposal by Sen. Cirinnà on establishing the legal institution of civil unions. Some opponents of this bill argued that equating same-sex civil unions with marriage would have had an excessive economic impact given the extension of the right to pension survivorship to same-sex couples. This argument shifts the focus from a normative, very urgent, demand for equality before the law for same-sex couples to a less clear-cut issue of a conflict over public resources and how to distribute them. But as we have seen, recognition demands cannot be reduced to distributive matters.

“The dialogue is justly structured and conducted only when all the relevant points of view are valued and heard and allowed to speak in their distinct voice. If it were to require all participants to speak in a single language, it would not only fail to render other languages their due but also enshrine the domination of the group or culture it represents,” Parekh ( 2004 : 207).

A case in point: in Italy many public offices and classrooms in public schools have a small crucifix on the wall. Lately there has been a debate over the necessity to remove crucifixes from publicly funded institutions in order to properly respect the neutrality of the Italian state. Some political parties and a section of the citizenry have criticized this proposal, defending the presence of crucifixes in public offices and schools as a symbol of Italy’s history and traditions, losing sight of the troubling effects that the decision to keep the crucifixes where they are would have for the neutrality of Italian society’s public space and the normative commitment to treat every identity at par.

For a technical analysis of the philosophical concept of public space, see Ruppert ( 2006 ).

Unlike private goods that are managed by the market, economic theory does not possess an instrument for evaluating the ratio between individuals’ self-interest and the price that everybody would be ready to pay for obtaining a portion of determined public goods. Hence, one of the main issues about public goods is the determination of the ‘demand function’. About this issue and for an interesting analysis of collective choices achieved via referenda, see Noam ( 1982 ).

Both Wellington ( 1995 ) and Wedgwood ( 1999 ) provide a normative defense of same-sex couples’ demands along the lines of the necessity for liberal democratic institutions to abide by the political principle of equality and therefore to legalize same-sex marriages. “So the law excluding same-sex couples from marriage are, prima facie, a violation of the principle of equality, and hence an unjust form of discrimination. So long as there is not sufficient evidence that allowing same-sex marriages would have uncontroversially harmful effects, the refusal to allow such marriages must be presumed to be seriously unjust,” Wedgwood ( 1999 : 241).

It is worth mentioning that a section of the LGBTQIA+ community has strongly opposed the attempt to identify the political struggle for marriage equality as a priority for the entire LGBTQIA+ movement. According to this view, the fight over the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples represents a selling-out of the LGBTQIA+ movement’s identity and of its history, as it would indicate that same-sex couples agree to conform to social standards historically imposed by heterosexual members of the polity. This debate is fascinating and would require an extensive discussion. I do not address it in this chapter, as what interests me is to illustrate the justice-oriented reasons that underlie the demand for marriage equality against the backdrop of a general paradigm of political legitimacy within liberal societies.

For an extensive analysis of these arguments, see Eskridge ( 1996 ), Galeotti ( 2008 ) and Gerstmann ( 2004 ).

For an illustration of the function that political parties can play as intermediate bodies connecting citizens to governments, see Wolkenstein ( 2016 ).

In this regard, it is important to recall that “tradition does not justify continued injustice,” Snyder ( 2006 : 100).

As a further argument on similar lines, some theorists argue that the proposal of same-sex marriage should be rejected, as it will likely ignite a slippery slope. According to this view, the legalization of marriage for same-sex couples would be a first step in a broader process for socially accepting moral turpitudes, such as polygamy, adult incest, and various forms of obscenity. For comprehensive rebuttals of the slippery slope argument, see Donovan ( 2002 ), Khalsa ( 2004–2005 ) and March ( 2010 ).

For an interesting analysis of the accessibility requirement of public justification in relation to arguments against marriage equality grounded in the value of tradition and references to the Bible, see Bardon ( 2018 ).

For a technical comparison between the standard neutral-oriented view of toleration in the liberal tradition vis-à-vis a more nuanced and injustice-remedial account of toleration as recognition, see Galeotti ( 2002 , 2008 , 2010 ).

In discussing the nexus between procreation and the right to marry, it is important to keep in mind the further issue concerning the possibility of extending the right of adoption to same-sex couples. The debate distinguishes between guaranteeing only the right to adopt the biological child of one’s partner (stepchild adoption), and the more extensive option of guaranteeing the right to adoption tout court for same-sex couples. For a more exhaustive discussion, I recommend reading Burleson ( 2009 ) and Graham ( 2008 ).

“None of the options currently available to same-sex couples − ‘commitment ceremonies’ with sympathetic clergymen, private contracts, or ‘registered domestic partnership’ − has a social meaning of this kind; none of these options is as familiar and widely understood as marriage. As a result, these options will be less effective than marriage for couples who want to affirm their commitment in a way that community will readily understand. […] In effect, they need to be able to say that they are married . Suppose that same-sex unions had a different name − as it might be, ‘quarriage’. There will presumably be many fewer same-sex quarriages than opposite-sex marriages; so the term ‘quarriage’ would be much less familiar and widely understood than the term ‘marriage’, and for this reason ‘quarriage’ would be less effective at fulfilling this serious desire than marriage,” Wedgwood ( 1999 : 241, emphasis in original).

Some scholars have challenged the progressive function of the Supreme Court in United States history. See for instance Christiano ( 2008 ), who shares the same skepticism expressed by Dahl ( 1959 ) and Tushnet ( 1999 ). U.S.A constitutional history is a paradigmatic case of the difficult struggle for the advancement of rights (Ackerman, 2014 ). A history that indeed provides examples in favor both of the progressive and conservative interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court role in the U.S.A society at large. For a more positive view of the progressive role of the U.S. Supreme Court, see Bickel ( 1986 ) and Pacelle ( 2002 ).

For an exhaustive analysis on the value of legal litigation as a booster for social and political progress, see Dupuis ( 2002 ) and Goldberg-Hiller ( 2002 ).

For an interesting take of Rawls’s proposal for an agreement over a background loose framework interpreted in constitutional terms, see Baier ( 1989 ). “But although there seems to be no consensus on a conception of justice, there is a consensus on something else, namely, on the procedures for making and interpreting law and, where that agreement is insufficiently deep to end disagreement, on the selection of persons whose adjudication is accepted as authoritative,” ( 1989 : 775).

Bohman ( 2006 : 183), for example, refers to Neurath’s famous metaphor of sailors who must reconstruct their wrecked ship on the open sea, therefore not being able to start afresh from the bottom, to highlight the self-reflexive character of democratic processes. According to this view, we need a holistic perspective to propose and realize adequate constitutional revisions. This characterization of democracy is perfectly compatible with the relevance that I attribute to reflective equilibrium as a general coherentist justificatory method to employ in political contexts of pervasive disagreement among fallible agents.

An historical example of the protective role of rights fulfilled by Supreme Courts is the landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education , 347 U.S. 483 ( 1954 ) ( https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep347/usrep347483/usrep347483.pdf ), in which the Supreme Court of the United States of America declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. An example concerning the protective role played by the Court of Justice of the European Union is the recent judgment Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González (C-131/122014) establishing the right to privacy for individuals’ data published on the internet, the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’ ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0131&from=EN ).

The most straightforward case against judicial review is developed by Waldron ( 2006 ). Waldron criticizes this exclusive power on two fronts. First, he claims that there is no conclusive reason to argue that the judicial power is better situated than legislatures in identifying and protecting rights. Second, judicial review is politically illegitimate, since, he argues, there is an overwhelming superiority of legislatures over courts in terms of legitimacy, equality, and participation that courts cannot emulate. For important rebuttals of Waldron’s approach, see Brettschneider ( 2007 , 2011 ), Christiano ( 2008 ) and Lever ( 2009 ).

“Civil rights, legal equality, and human dignity cannot be legitimately revoked by the majority; they exist as inalienable human rights not subjected to community approval,” Snyder ( 2006 : 7).

Brettschneider ( 2007 ) argues that the ideal of self-government justifies constraints on the democratic process, and that these constraints are justifiable without betraying democracy, therefore resolving the counter-majoritarian dilemma that arises given the tension between liberal and democratic rights. The case in point is when bad decisions are taken by majority rule. For Brettschneider such outcomes have a prima facie authority in virtue of the cluster of values underpinning the self-regulating mechanisms − including judicial review − of the legal system taken as a whole. The very same system though provides mechanisms of constitutional self-emendation that is a mark of democracy and the power of the courts stems from this institutional self-correcting structure. “Thus the appropriate way to understand justifiable judicial view is by appeal to a balancing model. Even though laws passed by democratic procedures retain normative force, the duty to uphold that law is overridden by another more fundamental duty to uphold and protect democratic values. On balance our duty to the values that constitute the core of democratic authority sometimes overrides our duty to laws passed by democratic procedures. But at times the duty to follow laws passed by democratic procedures trumps the duty to uphold the core values that ground democratic procedures,” Brettschneider ( 2011 : 3, emphasis in original).

This is the case of majoritarian dictatorships, a threat that has long been feared by republican thinkers who saw in unrestrained majorities the risk of mob rule. James Madison, for example, urged that the instability of government due to factional conflicts is actually linked to the tyranny of the majority, for measures to resolve these conflicts “are too often decided not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority,” Madison, Federalist paper No. 10 ( 2009 [1787]: 49).

Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court granted the right to marry to same-sex couples based on the state’s due process and equal protection constitutional law in 2003, and it was the first state to do so. Specifically, see Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 ( 2003 ).

In support of the thesis about the reinforcing dynamic between legal decisions and shifts in public opinion, it is relevant to note that public polls conducted in the United States have shown that since 2010, pretty consistently, just over 50% of the population have been in favor of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. However, a poll conducted after the Supreme Court’s ruling (2015) found support for that decision by 53% of the population. Afterwards, the percentage of Americans supporting same-sex marriage has been increasing consistently post Obergefell v. Hodges over the years. A June 2020 Gallup poll found that two in three Americans (67%) supported same-sex marriage, while 31% opposed it ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-matches-recordhigh.aspx ). For an extensive theoretical analysis of the impact of reluctant – if not utterly hostile – public opinion in hampering the political and legal processes for the recognition of marriage rights for same-sex couples, see Lewis and Gossett ( 2008 ) and Lewis and Oh ( 2008 ).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/

The legal case for marriage equality in the U.S. started with Baehr v. Miike, 910 P. 2d 112 (1996) decided by the Hawaii Supreme Court. Then, two well-known and deeply studied legal cases are Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics (1998) addressed by the Alaska Supreme Court and Baker v. State of Vermont (2000) decided by the Vermont Supreme Court.

Gerstmann ( 2004 : 141) provides us with a set of criteria for determining if a right is a fundamental one: “to determine whether a right is fundamental, the Court should consider whether it squares with precedent; whether it is inherently connected to other rights, whether government exercises monopoly power over it; and whether it runs afoul of the political question doctrine.”

There are three standards of scrutiny available to the U.S. Supreme Court when considering constitutional questions. In order to protect legal equality, plaintiffs’ categories are divided into three classes in order to determine which standards of scrutiny should be employed when dealing with citizens that have very likely been the object of discrimination. ‘Suspected Classes’ are protected by ‘ strict scrutiny ’, ‘quasi-suspected classes’ are protected by ‘ intermediate scrutiny ’, while others are protected by the standard level of scrutiny, the ‘ rational basis scrutiny ’. Naturally, establishing which categories belong to the different standards of scrutiny is a fundamental issue and a matter of controversy. Kory Schaff ( 2004 ), for example, convincingly argues that sexual orientation is a category that meets the criteria of suspect classification. It is worth highlighting that in Obergefell v. Hodges , the Court did not indicate the level of scrutiny that was being applied.

The Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf

Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 ( 1967 ) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/ ). In Loving , the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute that prohibited a white person from marrying anyone other than another white person. The Court’s opinion explained why the law deprived the Lovings, an interracial couple prosecuted in Virginia for violating the anti-miscegenation law, of constitutionally protected liberty without due process of law.

The Court’s most extended discussion of the right to marry can be founded in Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 ( 1978 ) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/374/ ).

Regarding the Equal Protection Clause, Cass Sunstein ( 1994b : 272–273) claims that it provides us with an anticaste principle : “The motivating idea behind an anticaste principle, broadly speaking Rawlsian in character, is that without very good reasons, social and legal structures ought not to turn differences that are irrelevant from the moral point of view into social disadvantages. They certainly should not be permitted to do so if the disadvantage is systemic. A difference is morally irrelevant if it has no relationship to individual entitlement or desert. Race and sex are certainly a morally irrelevant characteristic in this sense.”

“According to our deductions here, once potentially divisive disagreements over constitutional-essential applications have broken out in public, a Rawlsian supreme court will need, in order to fulfill its role in the constitution-centered program of justification, to be activist and strong-form, but also noticeably tolerant—if only up to a point. […] We have just been noticing, after all, how judicial tolerance for reasonable disagreements over constitutionality can serve as an emollient for the counter-majoritarian thrust of judicial-supremacist activism, which might otherwise be found unacceptable in a democracy,” Michelman ( 2019 : 74).

Cass Sunstein ( 1995 , 1996 ) is aware of such difficulties in implementing courts’ decisions. For this reason, he argues in favor of judicial minimalism; an approach to legal review that focuses more on determining the single case at stake, instead of making decisions with broad effects on a wide range of cases. Judicial minimalism claims that it is fundamental to leave space to public discussion and that, therefore, courts should leave as much as possible as undecided, determining what is right but not also establishing why it is right.

Michael Klarman ( 1994 ) provides an alternative account of the Brown v. Board of Education decision’s indirect contribution to the change in racial dynamics, specifically focusing on the backlash against Brown . In his view, Brown had the side-effect of crystallizing southern resistance to racial change, indirectly propelling a massive resistance and fostering an extremist political environment in which many politicians were predisposed to use whatever measures were necessary to maintain the Jim Crow status quo.

While I am revising this chapter, it appears that another paradigmatic example of backlash ruling against same-sex marriage in the U.S. is in the making, as of the beginning of 2022. A group of 24 Tennessee Republicans introduced in 2021 a proposal for a bill to undermine same-sex marriage rights in Tennessee. These Tennessee Republicans are proposing an “alternative” form of marriage in Tennessee called a “ Record of Marital Contract at Common Law ”. This proposal is now under consideration in the Tennessee Senate. This new kind of marriage contemplated by the legislation would only be available to marriages between a man and woman. Ultimately, the legislation appears to be a scheme to challenge the Supreme Court decision of Obergefell v. Hodges. The authors of the bill conclude the Supreme Court lacked “the authority to eradicate, alter, or modify the pre-legal and thus natural institution of marriage between a man and a woman acknowledged in human civilization throughout time and not conceivably subject to elimination by a constitutional amendment contingently appearing in our nation in the nineteenth century and which in no way purported to deny human realities universally acknowledged and practiced throughout history,” ( https://legiscan.com/TN/amendment/SB0562/id/139086 : 7–8).

For a technical analysis of this case, see Barker ( 2019 ) where the author tries to determine whether some forms of religious objection to conduct otherwise required by anti-discrimination laws can be accommodated without severely undermining the important ends served by those laws.

“[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths. Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law,” Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission , 138 S. Ct. 1719 ( 2018 , at 9). There remains no federal protection from discrimination in places of public accommodation based on sexual orientation, although the Supreme Court recently held that a federal statute prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sex also applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. See Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).

“This refusal would be well understood in our constitutional order as an exercise of religion, an exercise that gay persons could recognize and accept without serious diminishment to their own dignity and worth. Yet if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations,” Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission , 138 S. Ct. 1719 ( 2018 , at 10).

For an interesting analysis of the symbolic harm ignited by the Masterpiece owner’s refusal to provide a cake for a same-sex couple wedding, see Corvino ( 2018 ). “In Masterpiece, members of a long-persecuted minority, not yet assured of equal marriage rights (recall that the case originated in 2012), are painfully reminded of their ongoing inequality. Upon entering a shop open to the public and perusing a catalog of beautiful cakes sold there, the couple is told: Those are not for you . Such unpleasant surprises, particularly during the emotionally fraught process of wedding planning, can conjure deep shame and stress. These effects are compounded for those who have heard similar messages from an early age— from society, from their pastors, even from their own parents: Love and marriage are not for you ,” Corvino, ( 2018 : 17, emphasis in original).

http://www.senato.it/leg/17/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/46051.htm

http://www.senato.it/leg/17/BGT/Schede/FascicoloSchedeDDL/ebook/46051.pdf

I will not delve here into the harsh debate that took place, both at the parliamentary level, in the media and in civil society, regarding the opportunity to maintain or delete from the Cirinnà Bill the right to stepchild adoption. In order to increase the chances for the Bill to pass the parliamentary vote, the proponents of the Bill decided to remove article 5 which would have guaranteed the possibility of adopting the natural child of the partner by the other member of a same-sex couple. It is worth noting, however, that in many recent legal judgments, the Italian Juvenile Court, referring to article 44 letter d) of Law 184 governing special adoptions, has legislated in favor of the adoption of the biological child of one partner by the other partner within a same-sex cohabiting couple. Consistently with a progressive reading of the higher appeal courts’ role in liberal societies, it can be observed that the Juvenile Court of Rome has been playing a protective role for children and parental rights within same-sex families against a political environment that has proved not ready yet to find an adequate compromise for regulating adoption laws for this category of citizens.

In support of this conclusion, it is relevant to point out that recently, in June 2017, the German Federal Government extended marriage rights to same-sex couples, after having granted them access to the institution of registered partnerships since 2001. The benefits granted by these partnerships were gradually extended by the Federal Constitutional Court throughout several rulings until they provided for most of the rights of marriage, therefore being conducive to less factious conflicts over the establishment of same-sex marriage in the 2017 decision.

Consistently with this second conclusion, it is relevant to add a final cautionary tale, unfortunately exemplified by a political conflict that is developing right now in Italy (Spring 2021). The Democratic Party is supporting a bill proposal, DDL Zan, against discrimination and violence on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and ableism. The bill has been hindered since the first moments of its presentation by the conservative parties and is now sitting in the Senate Justice Commission, awaiting a ruling. Meanwhile, a big debate has arisen within civil society with many artists and activists publicly supporting the bill and factions assuming opposite positions over supporting or barring the bill, often defending specious views and introducing misleading arguments, marring the entire debate over the proposed bill.

https://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/DF/356433.pdf

Looking at opinion polls, a Eurispes poll conducted in early 2009 showed that 40.4% of Italians supported same-sex civil marriage, while 18.5% supported civil unions but not marriage. A May 2013 Ipsos poll found that 48% of respondents were in favor of same-sex marriage and another 31% supported other forms of recognition for same-sex couples. In January 2016, right before the vote on Cirinnà Bill, a poll showed that 46% were in favor of same-sex civil unions with 40% against. With regards to same-sex marriage, 38% were in favor and 55% were against. In 2019, a poll conducted by Eurispes found that 51% of Italians supported the legalization of same-sex marriage. Same-sex adoption was supported by 31.1%, while 68.9% were against it. According to a May 2019 Ipsos poll, 58% of Italians were in favor of same-sex marriage. Again, as in the U.S. example, it appears that a familiarization effect prompted by the institution of civil unions for same-sex couples, along with a wider debate in the public sphere regarding this issue, had positive effects on public opinion’s support for marriage equality.

Ackerman, B. (2014). We the people, volume 3, the civil rights revolution . Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar  

Alcoff, L. M. (2010). Epistemic identities. Episteme, 7 , 128–137.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baier, K. (1989). Justice and the aims of political philosophy. Ethics, 99 (4), 771–790.

Bardon, A. (2018). Is epistemic accessibility enough? Same-sex marriage, tradition, and the Bible. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 23 (1), 21–35.

Barker, P. (2019). Religious exemptions and the vocational dimension of work. Columbia Law Review, 119 (1), 169–204.

Bellamy, R. (2007). Political constitutionalism; A republican defence of the constitutionality of democracy . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others . Cambridge University Press.

Bickel, A. M. (1986). The least dangerous branch. The Supreme Court and the bar of politics . Yale University Press.

Bohman, J. (2006). Deliberative democracy and the epistemic benefits of diversity. Episteme, 3 (3), 175–191.

Brettschneider, C. (2007). Democratic rights and the substance of self-government . Princeton University Press.

Brettschneider, C. (2011). Judicial review and democratic authority: Absolute V. Balancing conceptions. Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy, 5 (3), 1–9.

Burleson, E. (2009). International human rights law, co-parent adoption, and the recognition of gay and lesbian families. Loyola Law Review, 55 (4), 791–803.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and subversion of identity . Routledge.

Casati, R. (2011). Prima lezione di filosofia . Editori Laterza.

Chemerinsky, E. (2019). Constitutional law. Principles and policies (6th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

Christiano, T. (2008). The constitution of equality. Democratic authority and its limits . Oxford University Press.

Connolly, W. (2002). Identity/difference. Democratic negotiations of political paradox . University of Minnesota Press.

Corvino, J. (2018). The kind of cake, not the kind of customer. Philosophical Topics, 46 (2), 1–20.

Cudd, A. (2006). Analyzing oppression . Oxford University Press.

Dahl, R. (1959). A preface to democratic theory . University of Chicago Press.

Donovan, J. M. (2002). Rock-salting the slippery slope: Why same-sex marriage is not a commitment to polygamous marriage. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 29 (3), 521–590.

Dupuis, M. (2002). Same-sex marriage, legal mobilization, & the politics of rights . Peter Lang Publishing.

Dworkin, R. (2011). Justice for hedgehogs . Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Eisgruber, C. L. (2001). Constitutional self-government . Harvard University Press.

Eskridge, W. M. (1996). The case for same-sex marriage. From sexual liberty to civilized commitment . The Free Press.

Ferrajoli, L. (2011). The normative paradigm of constitutional democracy. Res Publica, 17 , 355–367.

Fontana, D., & Braman, D. (2012). Judicial backlash or just backlash? Evidence from a national experiment. Columbia Law Review, 112 (4), 731–799.

Friedman, B. (2000). The history of the countermajoritarian difficulty, part four: Law’s politics. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148 (4), 971–1064.

Galeotti, A. E. (1993). Citizenship and equality: The place for toleration. Political Theory, 21 (4), 585–605.

Galeotti, A. E. (2002). Toleration as recognition . Cambridge University Press.

Galeotti, A. E. (2008). Toleration as recognition: The case for same sex marriage. In I. Creppell, R. Hardin, & S. Macedo (Eds.), (pp. 111–134). Lexington Books.

Galeotti, A. E. (2010). Respect as recognition: some political implications. In M. Seymour (Ed.), The Plural states of recognition (pp. 78–97). Palgrave-Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gerstmann, E. (2004). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . Cambridge University Press.

Goldberg-Hiller, J. (2002). The limits to union. Same-sex marriage and the politics of civil rights . The University of Michigan Press.

Graham, K. T. (2008). Same-sex couples: Their rights as parents, and their children’s rights as children. Santa Clara Law Review, 48 (4), 999–1037.

Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (Eds.). (2009). The federalist papers . Palgrave MacMillan. [1787].

Haslanger, S. (2012). Resisting reality: Social construction and social critique . Oxford University Press.

Khalsa, R. K. (2004–2005). Polygamy as a red herring in the same-sex marriage debate. Duke Law Journal, 54 , 1665–1693.

Klarman, M. J. (1994). How Brown changed race relations: The Backlash thesis. The Journal of American History, 81 (1), 81–118.

Lever, A. (2009). Democracy and judicial review: Are they really incompatible? Perspectives on Politics, 7 (4), 805–822.

Lewis, G. B., & Gossett, C. W. (2008). Changing public opinion on same-sex marriage: The case of California. Politics and Policy, 36 (1), 4–30.

Lewis, G. B., & Oh, S. S. (2008). Public opinion and state action on same-sex marriage. State & Local Government Review, 40 (1), 42–53.

Liveriero, F., & Santoro, D. (2017). Proceduralism and the epistemic dilemma of the supreme courts. Social Epistemology, 31 (3), 310–323.

March, A. (2010). What lies beyond same-sex marriage? Marriage, reproductive freedom and future persons in liberal public justification. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 27 (1), 39–58.

Michelman, F. I. (2019). Political-liberal legitimacy and the question of judicial restraint. Jus Cogens, 1 , 59–75.

Noam, E. N. (1982). Demand functions and the valuation of public goods. Public Choice, 38 , 271–280.

Okin, S., et al. (1999). Is multiculturalism bad for women? Princeton University Press.

Pacelle, R. L. (2002). The role of supreme court in American politics. The least dangerous branch? Westview Press.

Parekh, B. (2004). Redistribution or recognition? A misguided debate. In S. May, T. Modood, & J. Squires (Eds.), Ethnicity, nationalism and minority rights . Cambridge University Press.

Pateman, C., & Mills, C. (2007). Contract and domination . Polity Press.

Ruppert, E. S. (2006). Rights to public space: Regulatory reconfigurations of liberty. Urban Geography, 27 , 271–292.

Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 36 (4), 387–389.

Schaff, K. (2004). Equal protection and same-sex marriage. Journal of Social Philosophy, 35 (1), 133–147.

Schemmel, C. (2019). Real self-respect and its social bases. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 49 (5), 628–651.

Scott, J. W. (2007). The Politics of the Veil . Princeton University Press.

Snyder, R. C. (2006). Gay marriage and democracy. Equality for all . Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Sunstein, C. (1994a). Homosexuality and the constitution. Indian Law Journal, 70 (1), 1–28.

Sunstein, C. (1994b). Same-sex relations and the law. Metaphilosophy, 25 (4), 262–284.

Sunstein, C. (1995). Incompletely theorized agreements. Harvard Law Review, 108 (7), 1733–1772.

Sunstein, C. (1996). Legal reasoning and political conflict . Oxford University Press.

Tushnet, M. (1999). Taking the constitution away from the courts . Princeton University Press.

Velte, K. C. (2016). All fall down: A comprehensive approach to defeating the religious right’s challenges to antidiscrimination statutes. Connecticut Law Review, 49 (1), 1–54.

Waldron, J. (2006). The core of the case against judicial review. Yale Law Journal, 115 (6), 1346–1406.

Wedgwood, R. (1999). The fundamental argument for same-sex marriage. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 7 (3), 225–242.

Wellington, A. A. (1995). Why liberalism should support same-sex marriage. Journal of Social Philosophy, 26 (3), 5–32.

Wolkenstein, F. (2016). A deliberative model of intra-party democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 24 (3), 297–320.

Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy . Oxford University Press.

Brown v. Board of Education , 347 U.S. 483, 1954.: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep347/usrep347483/usrep347483.pdf

Cirinnà DDL : http://www.senato.it/leg/17/BGT/Schede/FascicoloSchedeDDL/ebook/46051.pdf

Gallup Poll on same-sex marriage support, June 2020: https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-matches-record-high.aspx

Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health , 440 Mass. 309, 2003.: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/440/440mass309.html

Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González (C-131/122014): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0131&from=EN

Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1, 1967.: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission , 138 S. Ct. 1719, 2018.: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdfù

Obergefell v. Hodges , 576 U.S. 644, 2015.: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/

Tennessee Bill Proposal “Record of Marital Contract at Common Law” : https://legiscan.com/TN/amendment/SB0562/id/139086

The Constitution of the United States of America : https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374, 1978.: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/374/

Zan DDL : https://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/DF/356433.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

Federica Liveriero

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Liveriero, F. (2023). A Case Study: Extending Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples. In: Relational Liberalism. Philosophy and Politics - Critical Explorations, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22743-1_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22743-1_7

Published : 15 February 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-22742-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-22743-1

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Same-sex marriage and big research questions behind the debate: Useful studies

2015 review of studies and surveys on issues related to same-sex couples, including legalization, health care, taxation impacts, child-raising and policy adoption.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by John Wihbey, The Journalist's Resource June 26, 2015

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/health/same-sex-marriage-big-research-questions-behind-debate-useful-studies/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

After years of growing support for gay marriage at the state level, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage throughout the United States. Prior to the ruling, 36 states and the District of Columbia authorized gay marriage. The favorable ruling from the Court compels all 50 states to do so.

According to a UCLA School of Law analysis of preliminary 2014 data , there are an estimate 350,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, a figure that may have doubled since 2013. The world of academic research provides some additional ideas for ways of approaching questions relating to same-sex marriage — and fresh ways of looking at these issues.

While more than 600 studies relating to LGBT issues have been funded by the National Institutes of Health over the past 25 years, better data and more research continue to be needed , experts say, to derive stronger conclusions on a variety of questions. Research can also provide insights on the deeper structural forces that are shaping the political debate.

Below is a sampling of research questions and links to associated papers, with both human-interest and political angles, that can help analysts and reporters go beyond the headlines:

• Same-sex couples and their families. A 2013 literature review by UCLA’s Mignon R. Moore and Michael Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, “LGBT Sexuality and Families at the Start of the Twenty-First Century,” takes a sweeping look at the state of research, which they say has largely focused on four themes: “who counts as family and how/whether changing definitions of family incorporate households formed by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people; the biological, social, and legal obstacles that influence family formation for this population; the outcomes for youth raised with lesbian or gay parents; and family dynamics, relationship quality, and relationship dissolution in same-sex couple and transgender partner households.”
• Health benefits. The University of Minnesota’s Gilbert Gonzales and Lynn A. Blewett published a 2014 analysis in the American Journal of Public Health that examines the relationship between state-level policies and employer-sponsored insurance for same-sex partners. Also see the authors’ related study on the implications for children of same-sex parents. (Overall issues of health status were comprehensively reviewed by the U.S. Institute of Medicine in 2011.)
• What are the tax effects? A 2014 study published in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,  “Revisiting the Income Tax Effects of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriages,” provides the first comprehensive look at this issue. New data sources allow the authors — James Alm of Tulane, Sebastian Leguizamon of Vanderbilt, and Susane Leguizamon of the University of Kentucky — to use household level information including income, number of children and mortgage payments, to construct their estimates.
• Children of same-sex parents. A significant volume of social science and psychological research continues to be published examining the question of how a child’s general well-being is affected by same-sex caregivers versus those growing up in a more traditional family. (The American Sociological Association recently reviewed the related research toward an amicus brief for a U.S. Supreme Court case.)
• Same-sex parents and differences in childcare. How do gay or lesbian parents differ in their approaches, versus heterosexual parents? There are many ways to examine the question. In a 2015 study published in Demography, Kate C. Prickett and Robert Crosnoe at the University of Texas at Austion and Alexa Martin-Storey look at differences in time spent with children. They find “few differences between same- and different-sex couples in child-focused time use.”
• What do survey data hide? Polls show a remarkable historical trend of growing support for same-sex couples. But how much do we really know? A 2013 paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, “The Size of the LGBT Population and the Magnitude of Anti-Gay Sentiment are Substantially Underestimated,” looks at the possibility that discrimination may be more pervasive than previously understood — and that the extent of the U.S. gay population remains under-counted. Researchers Katherine B. Coffman and Lucas C. Coffman of Ohio State University and Keith M. Marzilli Ericson of Boston University provide insights using a “veiled report” survey method.
• Public opinion data and anti-gay marriage arguments. Those who oppose same-sex marriage frequently cite societal opinion and underlying values as the basis for their views. Brian Powell and Natasha Yurk Quadlin of Indiana University and Oren Pizmony-Levy of Columbia University argue that survey data frequently do support certain kinds of legal arguments advanced by opponents.
• Why states legalize gay marriage. It’s not just one overriding cause or factor, says Rebekah Herrick of the Oklahoma State University. She draws on a wealth of new scholarship to examine geographical “policy diffusion,” the presence of gay state legislators, local attitudes and even the way judges are appointed or elected.
• Religious and class-based attitudes toward gays. One of the driving forces behind opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage is traditional religious belief. A 2012 study by Brittany H. Bramlett of the University of Maryland, “The Cross-Pressures of Religion and Contact with Gays and Lesbians, and Their Impact on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion,” examines how the interaction of these two often-countervailing pressures plays out and influences policy preferences. (It is also worth keeping in mind broader trends in American religious life.) A 2012 study from the Public Religion Research Institute, “Beyond Guns and God: Understanding the Complexities of the White Working Class in America,” created a profile of non-Hispanic, non-salaried workers without four-year college degrees and looked at the issues most important to this demographic.

 Keywords: gay issues, civil rights, same-sex unions, LGBT

About The Author

John Wihbey

Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction, same sex unions, history of same sex unions, debate on gay marriage.

Marriage has been regarded as one of the most important social institutions in the society. This is because it forms the basis of organization in any given society. “Marriage refers to an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found” (Dziengel, 2010).

Marriage is treated quite differently depending on the norms and values that exist in a given society. The current society is experiencing many social changes, which have influenced the nature of relationships among human beings. Marriage has also been affected by these social changes.

Marriage is today very dynamic and people treat it differently from what it used to be in the past. Same sex unions are becoming popular in many countries and they are quite prevalent in European countries as compared to other places. Same sex marriage is commonly known as gay marriage. “It refers to a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender” (Goldberg, 2010).

“Various types of same sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008). The early practice of this type of marriage was witnessed when Emperor Nero married a man who was serving as a servant in his Roman Empire.

Apart from Rome, this practice occurred in China during the Ming Dynasty and also in Spain. This type of marriage had very bad reputation and it was strongly rejected by many individuals and countries. “This attitude has been changing in the past few decades” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008). The twenty first century has witnessed a drastic change in the way people perceive this type of relationship.

Netherlands in the year 2001 emerged to be the first country to allow gay relationships. In 2003 the government of Belgium accepted this type of union. In 2005 both Canada and Spain formally accepted gay marriages. In 2006 the people of South African were allowed to practice gay marriages.

Sweden allowed it in 2009. Last year, Argentina, Iceland and Portugal also accepted this kind of relationship. In Mexico it is legalized but with some restrictions in the sense that it can only be practiced within the city of Mexico. However, all Mexican states acknowledge it.

“Israel does not recognize same sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdiction” (Ronner, 2005). Apart form South Africa, other African countries still remain conservative and they are not willing to accept this relationship. “In the United States, although same sex marriages are not recognized federally, same sex couples can marry in five states and one district” (Smith, 2010).

Opposing Arguments

The subject of gay marriage has been seriously debated in many places. This issue has been discussed both in religious and political circles. The following arguments have been used to reject gay marriage.

The general question is that why should people practice this kind of relationship? This is what the majority of people opposed to it seem to be asking whenever this issue is raised in any discussion. This people contend that legal relationships are only those between men and women. Hence they do not see the sense of people engaging in any other type of intimate relationship (Ronner, 2005).

Marriage is often seen as a religious rite and in this case people look at it from the religious perspective. They therefore believe that if gay marriage is legitimized it would undermine the religious principles. This is because religion has always been used to sanctify marriages (Farrior, 2009).

The dignity of the church has been affected because of the different attitudes adopted by religious leaders on this matter. Some churches are likely to get split because they cannot come to an agreement on how to handle this issue. This has adversely affected their capacity to spread the gospel. Some members of the church have even lost their faith and trust in religion because they do not agree with the church leaders who support this kind of relationship.

For example, the Anglican Church members and their leaders have been arguing about gay marriages. Since some of them support it, they have now formed a separate church. The Catholic Church has also had the same problem. Some Catholic monks have also been accused of child molestation and this has really affected their reputation.

Marriage is naturally understood as an institution for raising children. Same sex marriages do not give children an opportunity to have a good development. “In this case some individuals strongly feel that same sex partners can not provide the moral and psychological support required for raising children” (Goldberg, 2010). This is because such children would find it quite unusual when they realize that their parents have the same sex. This can really affect them psychologically (Goldberg, 2010).

Gay marriages are understood as unnatural unions. “This premise influences other arguments and lies behind many negative opinions about homosexuality in general” (Acevado & Wada, 2011). Since gay relationships are not normal, they should be reduced to social unions instead of being authenticated by the national leaders in a given country. This is because if such abnormal behaviors are allowed, they are likely to become very prevalent in our society in the near future. This may cause very many social problems.

Marriage is also an important cultural symbol. “Apart from marriage being an institution, it is also a symbol representing our culture’s ideals about sex, sexuality, and human relationships” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008). Symbols are very important because it is through them that we develop a sense of belonging to a given society or race. “Thus when the traditional nature of marriage is challenged in any way, so are people’s basic identities” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008).

It would also be difficult and expensive to integrate this people into the society. This is because people have to be taught to accept them. “Teaching people to become tolerant to gay individuals would be expensive” (Smith, 2010).

Supporting Arguments

Even though gay marriage is not supported by some people, I disagree with them because of the following arguments.

Marriage enables people to have access to social and economic needs. “Studies repeatedly demonstrate that people who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically” (Ronner, 2005). Therefore if gay couples are guaranteed the right to marry they will probably have the chance to benefit from being married. This will also be helpful to the gay communities at large. For example the gay couples would remain committed in helping each other because of the marriage vows.

It would also be wrong for gay relationships to be treated as civil unions. This is because if the gay individuals can get married, they stand a better chance of enjoying several opportunities. This can not be the case if they are in civil unions. “Equality before the law means that creating civil unions for gays will lead to civil unions for every one else and this type of marriage will be more of a threat than gay unions could possibly be” (Farrior, 2009).

The stability of our society can be enhanced if gay individuals can be given a chance to marry. Even the people who oppose this relationship believe that the family is the basis of our society. Therefore, if more families are formed through gay marriages, we can have a great society. The family also dictates the general trend in the society. Marriage would also facilitate the integration of gay people into their communities. Accepting gay relationships will therefore enhance the strength of our communities.

Many children are leading poor lifestyles and they cannot even access the common basic needs. Destitute children can have a chance to lead a good life if they can be adopted by married gay individuals. This is because they can provide emotional and financial support to such children. This can only be possible if they can be allowed to get married and adopt children.

Many people and groups are increasingly becoming conscious, and more concerned about the human rights. “Another argument that favors same sex marriages is that denying same sex couples legal access to marriage and all of its attendant benefits represents discrimination based on sexual orientation” (Dziengel, 2010). Many people and institutions promoting human rights concur with this assertion. People in same sex unions do not access the rights given to the married people.

Gay couples have faced myriad challenges. Most of them have experienced psychological problems associated with verbal and physical abuse. For example, some of them have been attacked and brutally killed. This is because many people are not wiling to be associated with them hence they always intimidate them. One way of eliminating this stigmatization is by simply making it legal for them to get married.

It has also been noted with a lot of concern that HIV/AIDS is spreading among the gay people because they operate illegally. Marriage would make this people more faithful to their partners. This can reduce the chances of them contracting HIV/AIDS because they will be more responsible.

From the above argument it is very clear that many countries and individuals are increasingly accepting the fact that gay relationships are equally good. It is therefore important for people to stop being conservative only when it comes to marriage, yet they accept other serious changes that take place in their society.

For example, if abortion can be legalized, why no not gay marriages? “Legalizing gay marriages will probably make the social economic and political institutions in our societies more effective” (Smith, 2010). This is because people will have similar goals, and they will not have differences based on sexual orientation. I am therefore optimistic that in the near future many people will support same sex relationships.

Acevado, G., & Wada, R. (2011). Religion and attitudes toward same sex marriages among U.S. Latinos. Wiley -Blackwell Social Science Quarterly , 92, 35-56.

Benard, S. (2009). Heterosexual previlage awareness, previlage and support of gay marriage among diversity course students. EBSCOhost Journal , 58, 3-7.

Dziengel, L. (2010). Advocacy coalitions and punctuated equilibriam in the same sex marriage debate: learning from pro-LGBT policy changes in Minneapolis and Minnesota. Journal of Gay and Lesbian services , 22, 165-182.

Farrior, S. (2009). Human rights advocacy on gender issues: challanges and opportunites. Oxford Journal of Human Rights Practice , 1, 83-100.

Goldberg, A. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: research on the family life cycle. Claiming a place at the family table: gay and lesbian families in the 21st century , 72, 230-233.

Haider, D., & Joslyn, M. (2008). Belives about the origin of homosexuality and support for gay rights. Oxford Journals public Opinion Quarterly , 72, 291-310.

Ronner, A. (2005). Homophobia and the law (law and public policy). New York: American Psychological Association.

Smith, M. (2010). Gender politics and same sex marriage debate in the United States. Oxford Jourrnals Social Politics , 17, 1-28.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, April 1). Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/

"Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage." IvyPanda , 1 Apr. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage'. 1 April.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/.

1. IvyPanda . "Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/.

• Gay Marriage and Parenting
• Arguments for Supporting Same-Sex Marriage
• Factors Influencing Perception on Same-sex marriage in the American Society
• Why Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal
• Gay Marriage Legalization
• Balancing Studies, Work, and Family Life
• Emotions and reasoning
• Correlation Between Multiple Pregnancies and Postpartum Depression or Psychosis

• Social Science

Your topic: Essay - Thesis Statement: Same sex

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021

Example 1: Gay Marriages Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right. To have experts write for you a quality paper on same sex marriage, seek help from a trusted academic writing service where you can buy research proposals online with ease and one you can be sure of getting the best possible assistance available

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Paragraph 1:

Same-sex marriage provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care.

• It gives them the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples.
• It makes it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Paragraph 2:

Same sex marriage allows two people in love to happily live together.

• Homosexuals deserve to be in love just like heterosexuals.
• The definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes.

Perhaps you may be interested in learning about research proposals on human trafficking .

Paragraph 3:

Same sex marriage gives homosexual couples the right to start families.

• Gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children.
• A family should ideally have parents and children.
• It is not necessary that the parents be a male and female.  

Paragraph 4:

Same sex marriage does not harm the institution of marriage and is potentially more stable.

• Legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not  negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage.
• Heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages.

Paragraph 5:

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and mother for a balanced upbringing.

• They hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence on children.
• They forget that that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places.

Paragraph 6:

Opponents may also argue that same-sex marriages reduce sanctity of marriage.

• To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony.
• Unfortunately, such arguments treat marriage as a man-wife union only.
• They fail to recognize that there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.
• Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages.
• It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them to actualize their love in matrimony.
• It enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children.
• It is only fair that all governments consider legalizing same sex marriages.

Read on the best motivational speech ideas .

Argumentative Essay on Same Sex Marriage

For many years now, same-sex marriage has been a controversial topic. While some countries have legalized the practice, others still consider it not right and treat it as illegal. Same-sex marriage is defined as a marriage or union between two people of the same sex, such as a man and a man. Some countries have broadened their perspective on this issue even though for many years, it has never been legally acknowledged, with some societies even considering it a taboo. The United Kingdom, Spain, France, Argentina, the Netherlands, and recently the United States are some of the countries that have legalized it (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Irrespective of any arguments, same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right.

First, same-sex marriage, if recognized by society, provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care. If people live together in a homosexual relationship without being legally married, they do not enjoy the security to protect what they have worked for and saved together. In case one of them dies, the surviving partner would have no right over the property under the deceased’s name even if they both funded its acquisition (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Legalizing same-sex unions would cushion homosexual partners from such unfortunate situations. They would have the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples. Legalization would also make it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Same sex marriage also allows two people in love to become one in a matrimonial union and live happily together. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is thus denying them the right to be in love just like heterosexuals do. Moreover, the definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes. According to Gerstmann (2017), marriage is a formally or legally recognized union between two people in a personal relationship. As per this definition, people should be allowed to marry once they are in love with each other irrespective of their genders. Reducing marriage to a union between a man and woman is thus a direct infringement into the rights of homosexuals.

Additionally, gay marriages give homosexual couples the right to start families. Just like heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children. Essentially, a family should ideally have parents and children and it is not necessary that the parents be a male and female. Same sex partners can easily adopt and bring up children if their marriage is legalized and recognized by the society in which they live (Gerstmann, 2017). As one would concur, even some heterosexual couples are not able to sire their own children and resort to adopting one or even more. This is a right that should be extended to same sex couples too given that they may not be able to give birth on their own.

Further, same sex marriage does no harm whatsoever to the institution of marriage, and is potentially more stable. According to a 2009 study, legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not in any way negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage (Langbein & Yost, 2009). This makes it quite uncalled for to argue against or prohibit gay marriages. In yet another study, only 1.1 percent of legally married gay couples end their relationships as compared to the 2 percent annual divorce rate among opposite-sex couples (Badgett & Herman, 2011). This implies that heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages. It could then be argued that gay marriages are more stable than traditional man-woman marriages. The two types of marriages should thus be given equal chance because neither affects the other negatively. They also have more or less equal chances of succeeding if legally recognized and accepted.

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and a mother. They may say that for children to have a good balance in their upbringing, they should be influenced by a father and a mother in their developmental years. Such arguments hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence over the lives of children and that this is less fulfilling (Badgett, 2009). However, the arguments fail to recognize that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places. At school, the children get to be cared for and mentored by both male and female teachers who more or less serve almost the same role as parents.

Those who are opposed to same sex unions may also argue that such marriages reduce sanctity of marriage. To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony that is held very sacred by people. They contend that there is need to do everything possible to preserve marriage because as an institution, it has been degrading slowly over time. Their concern is that traditional marriages are being devalued by same sex marriages which are swaying people away from being married and instead choosing to live with same sex partners (Nagle, 2010). It is clear here that such arguments treat marriage as a man-woman union only and are thus not cognizant of the true meaning of marriage. Moreover, they fail to recognize that traditions and religions should not be used against same sex couples because there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.

Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages. It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them the well-deserved opportunity of actualizing their love in matrimony. In addition, it enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children. Arguments made against this form of marriage, such as that it undermines traditional marriages, are based on opinions and not facts. Moreover, it is not important for a child to have a father and a mother because there are other places in which they actively interact with people of different sexes. As such, it is only fair that all governments consider legalizing gay marriages.

Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011).  Patterns of relationship recognition by same-sex couples in the United States [PDF]. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Marriage-Dissolution-FINAL.pdf .

Badgett, M. V. (2009). When gay people get married: what happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage . New York, NY: NYU Press.

Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Langbein, L., & Yost, M. A. (2009). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities.  Social Science Quarterly , 90(2), 292-308.

Nagle, J. (2010). Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017). Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Explore a persuasive essay about strengthening community handled by our tutors following the prompt provided.

Example 2: Sample Essay Outline on Same Sex Marriages

Thesis:  Same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

Pros of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex couples are better at parenting.

• Children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health.
• Children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers perform better academically and socially.

Same sex marriage reduces divorce rates.

• The divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. Higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited.
• Divorce is not good for family cohesion.

Same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing.

• Bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil.
• After some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced increased anxiety disorders.

Cons of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages.

• It could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling.
• They might want to become homosexuals upon growing up.

For a holistic development, a child should have both mother and father.

• Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child.
• A child needs to learn how to relate with both male and female genders right from when they are born.

Other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions.

• People who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged.
• They might start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals for instance.

Why Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

Paragraph 7:

Marriage is a fundamental human right.

• All individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right.
• Denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

Paragraph 8:

Marriage is a concept based on love.

• It is inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and woman.
• Marriage is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding.

Paragraph 9:

opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

• However, this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular.
• It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition.

Same sex marriage should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex.

Same Sex Marriage Essay Example

The idea of same sex marriage is one of the topics that have been widely debated in the United States of America. It has often been met with strong opposition since the majority of the country’s citizens are Christians and Christianity views the idea as evil. On the other hand, those who believe it is right and should be legalized have provided a number of arguments to support it, including that it is a fundamental human right. This debate is still ongoing even after a Supreme Court ruling legalized this type of marriage. However, this debate is unnecessary because same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

It has been proven through studies that same sex couples are better at parenting. A University of Melbourne 2014 study indicated that compared to children raised by both mother and father, children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health. Similarly, the journal  Pediatrics  published a study in 2010 stating that children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers performed better academically and socially (Gerstmann, 2017). The children also experienced fewer social problems.

Same sex marriages also reduce divorce rates. According to Gerstmann (2017), the divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. This was as per the analysis of the before and after divorce statistics. Likewise, higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited. Generally, divorce is not good for family cohesion especially in terms of caring for children. Children need to grow up under the care of both parents hence the need for their parents to stay together.

In addition, same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing. This is because bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil. A study report released in 2010 showed that after some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced a 248% rise in generalized anxiety disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 37% rise in mood disorders (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). In this respect, allowing such marriages would make them feel normal and accepted by society.

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages and the longstanding marriage culture in society. Perhaps, it could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling and enjoyable than opposite-sex relationships. As a result, they might want to become homosexuals upon growing up. This would mean that standardized marriages between opposite sexes face a bleak future (Nagle, 2010). Such a trend might threaten to throw the human race to extinction because there would be no procreation in future generations.

Same sex unions also fall short because for a holistic development, a child should have both a mother and a father. Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child. The two major genders in the world are male and female and a child needs to learn how to relate with both of them right from when they are born (Nagle, 2010). A father teaches them how to live alongside males while a mother teaches them how to do the same with females.

Further, other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions. If the marriages are accepted worldwide, people who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). They might even start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals, for instance. This possibility would water down and deinstitutionalize the whole concept of consummation and marriage. This would further diminish the existence of heterosexual marriages as people would continue to find less and less importance in them.

Same sex unions should be legal because marriage is a fundamental human right. It has been stated by the United States Supreme Court fourteen times since 1888 that all individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). In making these judgments, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Due Process Clause protects as one of the liberties the freedom to make personal choice in matters of marriage. The Court has maintained that this free choice is important as it allows free men to pursue happiness in an orderly manner. Thus, denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

People should also be legally allowed to get into same sex unions since marriage is a concept based on love. It is traditionally inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The working definition of marriage should be that it is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). Making it an exclusively man-woman affair trashes the essence of love in romantic relationships. If a man loves a fellow man, they should be allowed to marry just like a man and a woman in love may do.

As already alluded to, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Based on this traditional definition of marriage, they contend that gay and lesbian couples should not marry. However, as noted by Carpenter (2005), this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular and is thus seriously flawed and fallacious. It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition. That marriage only happens when one man and one woman come together in a matrimony is a constricted view of the institution of marriage. Moreover, there are no reasons accompanying the definition showing that it is the right one or should be the only one (Carpenter, 2005). Therefore, it should be expanded to include same-sex couples. The lack of reasons to support it makes it defenseless thus weak.

Same sex marriages should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex or not. Just like love can sprout between a man and a woman, so can it between a man and a fellow man or a woman and a fellow woman. There is absolutely no need to subject gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to unnecessary psychological torture by illegalizing same sex marriage.

Carpenter, D. (2005). Bad arguments against gay marriage.  Florida Coastal Law Review , VII , 181-220.

Gerstmann, E. (2017).  Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hertz, F., & Doskow, E. (2016).  Making it legal: a guide to same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships & civil unions . Berkeley, CA: Nolo.

Nagle, J. (2010).  Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017).  Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Example 3: Same Sex Marriage Essay

Same Sex Marriage Essay- Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. Discuss how the idea of gay marriage has changed over the last decade and show the progression of the movement.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Essay Outline

Introduction 

Thesis:  Gay marriage was regarded as an abomination in the early years, but in recent times the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage is gradually changing.

In 1965, 70% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage.

• They cited its harmfulness to the American life.
• Prevalence of AIDS among gay people further increased this opposition.

Social gay movements contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Gay movements increased the exposure of members of the society to gay marriage while showing their sufferings.
• Through social movements, the society saw the need for equality and fair treatment of gay persons.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Political bodies and politicians pushed for equality of gay people in efforts to garner political mileage.
• The influence of politicians changed the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

The incidence of gay people, particularly in the United States has contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Increase in the number of gay persons pushed people into accepting gay marriage.
• The media contributed in gathering compassion from members of the society by evidencing the sufferings of gay people.

The judiciary upheld the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

• In 2014, 42 court rulings were made in favor of gay marriage.
• There are more than 30 states today with policies in support of same-sex marriage.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage.

• The Supreme Court ruling in 1987 that stopped governments from restricting the freedom of marriage worked in favor of same-sex marriage.

Paragraph 7: 

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them.

• Restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality.
• An adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for the fulfillment of love by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage has changed. Social gay movements and increased incidence of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate gay marriages. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Sample Essay

In the early years, gay marriage was an abomination and received criticism from many members of society. The principal reason as to why many people in society were objected to gay marriage was that it went against religious and societal values and teachings (Decoo, 2014). However, over the past three decades, the perception of society towards the practice has changed. The degree of its social tolerance and acceptance has gradually improved. In the 2000s, numerous social and political lobby groups pushed for a change in insolences towards gay marriage (Decoo, 2014). Though these lobby groups have tried to advocate for the rights of gay people, their principal focus was to change people’s attitudes towards homosexuality.

According to a study conducted in the year 1965 investigating the attitudes of Americans towards gay marriage, seventy percent of the respondents were opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage citing its harmfulness to the American life. Most Americans felt that the practice went against the social and moral values of the American society. In the years between 1975 and 1977, the number of Americans who were not objected to gay marriage increased (Decoo, 2014). However, this number decreased in the years of 1980, when the prevalence of AIDS among gay people hit alarming levels. In the years that followed, the attitudes of the American society towards gay marriage rapidly changed.

The rise of gay social movements has contributed significantly to a change in attitude of the society towards gay marriage. In the early years, people were not exposed to issues of same-sex marriage, but the gay social movements focused on increasing the exposure of gay marriage, while advocating for their equal treatment (Keleher & Smith, 2018). These movements were able to reveal the injustices and unfair treatment that gays were exposed to, and how such unfair treatment tarnishes the image of the society (Keleher & Smith, 2018). The movements persuaded the society to embark on ways of addressing injustices meted out on gay people. Through highlighting these injustices, members of the society acknowledged the need for reforms to bring about impartiality and non-discrimination in marriage.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to changing the attitude of the society towards the practice. As a matter of fact, one of the strategies that gay social movements employed in their advocacy for gay rights were political maneuvering (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The lobby groups approached aspiring politicians, who would advocate for equal rights of gays to garner political mileage. With time, politicians would use the subject to attack their competitors who were opposed to the idea of same sex marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). This increased political support for gay marriage influenced members of the society into changing their attitude towards the same.

The ever increasing number of gays, particularly in the United States, has contributed to a change in the attitude of the world society towards gay marriage. As the number of gays increased in the U.S., it became hard for members of the society to continue opposing this form of marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). Many families had at least one or more of their family members who would turn out to be gay. The perception of gay people by such families would therefore change upon learning that their loved ones were also gay (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The media also played a significant role in gathering compassion from the members of the society by portraying the injustices that gay people experienced (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The society would as a result be compelled to sympathize with gays and lesbians and thus change their stance on same-sex marriage.

Further, the judiciary has also contributed to the change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage. There were states in the U.S. that initially illegalized same sex marriages, prompting gay people to file discrimination lawsuits (Coontz, 2014). Reports indicate that in the year 2014, there were more than 42 court rulings that ruled in favor of same-sex couples (Coontz, 2014). Some critics of same-sex marriage termed these rulings as judicial activism. They argued that the judiciary was frustrating the will of the American society, which was opposed to same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Following these rulings and the increased advocacy for equality and fair treatment of gay people, some states implemented policies is support of same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Today, the entire United States treats the practice as legal, as was determined by the Supreme Court back in 2015.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage has also contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage. In the early years, there were states, especially in the United States, that opposed interracial marriages, so that a white could not marry an African-American, for instance (Coontz, 2014). In the years before 1967, there were states that restricted people with tuberculosis or prisoners from getting married. Other states also discouraged employers from hiring married women. However, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that state governments had no right to deny people of their freedom of marriage (Coontz, 2014). When such laws were regarded as violations of human rights, gay people also termed the restriction of same-sex marriage as a violation of their liberty and freedom to marry.

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them and their decision as two adults. According to such people, restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality. For example, they point out that this extreme view fails to acknowledge that gay couples also derive fulfilment from their romantic relationships (Steorts, 2015). They additionally contend that an adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for this fulfillment by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing. Whether they love a man or a woman should not be anybody’s concern. The argument also notes that gay couples who have come out clearly demonstrate that they are happy in their relationships.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political, and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards it has significantly changed. Social gay movements and increased numbers of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate the practice. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage, thereby finally making the practice legal in the United States.

Coontz, S. (2014). “Why America changed its mind on gay marriageable”.  CNN . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/opinion/coontz-same-sex-marriage/index.html

Decoo, E. (2014).  Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in the United States from 1977 to 2012 . Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

Demock, M., Doherty, C., & Kiley, J. (2013). Growing support for gay marriage: changed minds and changing demographics.  Gen ,  10 , 1965-1980.

Keleher, A. G., & Smith, E. (2008). Explaining the growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. In  Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA .

Steorts, J. L. (2015). “An equal chance at love: why we should recognize same-sex marriage”.  National Review . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/yes-same-sex-marriage-about-equality-courts-should-not-decide/

Our article explores the intricacies of same-sex marriage discourse, offering a debated essay with a structured outline. Explore our speech writer generator free tool and create a good speech.

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of professional writers

• American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
• Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
• Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
• Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
• Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
• Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
• Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

If you are having any issues choosing a suitable topic for your argumentative essay, worry no more for we have a variety of argumentative topics  to choose from and convince others of your position. Y ou can also get college homework help from Gudwriter and receive a plagiarism free paper written from scratch.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…