Gay Marriage Opinion Essay

Mainwaring goes on to argue that because Only a little more than 53% of the signers were Republican, and the remain an assortment of parties, gay marriage is a common, mainstream concern, to be dual-lane among citizens of all backgrounds. Mainwaring defends the signers of this petition, stating that because they sign-language(a) an anti-gay marriage petition, their actions cannot be chalked up to homophobic motives. He says that the vast majority only if view marriage as an abiding bourninal that can only apple to heterosexuals, and that we shouldnt mess with the term marriage.I describeed before that Mainwarings opinion on this topic is advantageously unique. This is because he himself is, in occurrence, gay. It was not only the fact that Mainwaring decided to mention this, further also the juxtaposition of this statement that was mildly infuriating to me. To me, placing the fact that he is gay directly after his statements defending the people who signed the petition is a bit like an African-American saying I think blacks should be subject to a lower standard of livelihood than whitesand its okay for me to think this because Im blackIf a black person were to say this today, this would be considered socially unacceptable from roughly every person in this country, and it should be the same for Mainwaring and all early(a) gays. Its extremely difficult for me to crimson begin to wrap my motion around how Mainwaring can even have this opinion. How he can blatantly undermine the oppressed minority he has categorized himself into, simply because we should not attempt to force into an old construct something that was never meant for same-sex partnerships is appalling.Mainwaring believes that simply because the term marriage has meant one thing for the past two hundred years, it simply cannot be open to interpretation, like m all other dated law of natures. So mevery different sections of the constitution have been twisted and bent toward discordant opinions, just as the following should be. All persons born or conventional in the United call forths, 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. The argument that Mainwaring is act to make is ill-supported and weak. It is less credible that the late 1920s Separate but Equal mantra, considering civil unions, which Mainwaring proposes for gays, are in no way even close to being equal to a traditional marriage.Before the polite Rights Movement, many people were raised to believe that blacks were meant to be inferior. However, as consciousness arose, people began to realize that this simply is not true under the look of the law, there should be virtually no difference between a black person and a white person. Likewise, there should be no difference between a gay or a bang-up couple. A civil union is in no way a reasonable alternative for gays, and if us as Americans were to make that statement the refreshed traditional, there one day in the future whitethorn be no limits on the term marriage.