Legalizing Same Sex Marriage

Legalizing Same Sex Marriage
The debate on gay marriage is an ongoing argument in the United States. Andrew Sullivan and William J. Bennett are two people who wrote on the topic. Sullivan, an advocate of gay marriage, was the first to write a national cover story in favor of equal marriage in 1989. Sullivan published his book “Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality” in 1995. In 1996, Bennett responds to Sullivan’s book by writing a rebuttal as an op-ed column in the Washington Post. These two authors show why this debate will continue to happen because of the valid points made on both sides.
Sullivan feels that conservatives can’t argue the impossibility of having children because there are no marriage laws which require couples to bear children. He challenges the strong conservative argument of the “Domestic Partnership” laws by stating heterosexual people who live together can qualify for these benefits whether there is a sexual relationship or not. Homosexuals are not the only ones who can qualify. With legalized marriage of same sex couples, he believes homosexuals would be able to be looked at for their devotion to one another rather than the stereotypical views they face now. Sullivan asks his readers to empathize with the plight of homosexuals who have been marginalized and denied basic rights in our society. Legalizing gay marriage doesn’t defy tradition; rather, it supports it by reinforcing fundamental human values such as the right to love and be loved. Legalizing gay marriage would go a long way toward establishing equality for gays and lesbians. Any intelligent person, conservative or liberal, should recognize and support the fairness and equality of homosexual unions.
As in the case of all debates, not everyone shares the same views as Andrew Sullivan. William J. Bennett, known for his writings on cultural issues in America, opposes the idea of legal same sex marriage. In response to Sullivan’s article, Bennett disagrees with Sullivan about same sex marriage boosting fidelity. In fact, Bennett feels that it will cause serious social damage. Bennett strongly disagrees with Sullivan’s claim that children will not be impacted by same sex parents. He expresses his belief that it is crucial for a child to be raised by their mother and father rather than couples of the same sex. He makes his belief clear about sex education teachings needing to be revised and include homosexual marriages as equal to the traditional heterosexual marriages.
Andrew Sullivan approaches his audience on this topic by using equality and fairness to debate the issue. Although he acknowledges that the definition of marriage is hard to dispute, Sullivan makes a good argument when he states that the sexuality of the person shouldn’t matter as long as there is the expected bond between two people who are in love. This argument is effective in helping his readers understand that the pursuit of happiness should not fall exclusively into a heterosexual category. Sullivan achieved his goal by using values to make valid points throughout his passage. No matter the sexuality, we are all humans who hold certain rights as U.S citizens. These rights should not be contested because of sexual preference.
Bennett tries to redirect the reader’s attention from Sullivan’s point of fairness and equality to his own direction in defining marriage and the cause and effect that it will have. He states that if the definition of marriage was to be expanded, it would continue to expand even further beyond homosexual couples. He uses the example of two brothers being able to expand the definition even more. This allows his readers to question the line being drawn and where it should end. He also speaks about how legal same sex marriage would cause confusion particularly in the young adults and teenagers in their sexuality preference. Bennett uses a sarcastic tone when he talks about Hawaii’s Supreme Court decision to legalize same sex marriage by saying they have “discovered a new state constitutional right” (409). This type of approach can cause his readers to question the legitimacy of the law because there can’t be new rights discovered in the constitution.
In conclusion, these two authors debate each other on a topic that is still to this date being strongly discussed. Both Sullivan and Bennett have very strong arguments pertaining to same sex marriage and the effects that will occur on either side of the issue. Whether for or against same sex marriage, this is an issue that needs attention and a resolution in the near future so that the people of this country can move on to other issues that need attention.