Gay Marriage Opinion Essay

Mainwaring goes on to argue that because Only a little more than 53% of the signers were Republican, and the lie an assortment of parties, gay sum is a common, mainstream concern, to be shared among citizens of tout ensemble backgrounds. Mainwaring defends the signers of this petition, stating that because they signed an anti-gay marriage petition, their actions cannot be chalked up to homophobic motives. He says that the broad majority simply view marriage as an immutable term that can only apple to heterosexuals, and that we shouldnt mess with the term marriage.I menti unrivalledd originally that Mainwarings opinion on this topic is considerably unique. This is because he himself is, in fact, gay. It was not only the fact that Mainwaring decided to mention this, but also the apposition 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 bid an African-A merican saying I think obscures should be submit to a lower standard of living 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 nearly every person in this country, and it should be the same for Mainwaring and all other gays. Its extremely difficult for me to even begin to wrap my head 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 each other dated laws. So many several(predicate) sections of the constitution have been twisted and bent toward various opinions, just as the following should be. A ll 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 testimonial of the laws. The argument that Mainwaring is trying to make is ill-supported and weak. It is less credible that the late 1920s Separate but Equal mantra, considering complaisant unions, which Mainwaring proposes for gays, are in no counseling even close to being equal to a traditional marriage.Before the Civil Rights Movement, many people were raised to believe that blacks were meant to be inferior. However, as sense arose, people began to realize that this simply is not true under the eyes of the law, there should be virtually no diff erence between a black person and a white person. Likewise, there should be no difference between a gay or a straight couple. A civil union is in no way a reasonable alternative for gays, and if us as Americans were to make that statement the new traditional, there one day in the future may be no limits on the term marriage.