Same-sex marriage has been a long-standing heated debate in the United States for the past few decades, and people who have conservative views continue to protest against this legislation. As Judge Amy Coney Barrett has replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Supreme Court, the majority of judges now have conservative views (Holbrook, 2020). This has brought significant concerns for gay couples, as the number of cases that oppose same-sex marriages on religious claims is on the rise (Holbrook, 2020). This essay discusses why these old-fashioned views must be disregarded since society has embraced equal rights, including gay marriages.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
Societal norms are a subject for change over time, as they evolve alongside human civilization. Opponents of gay marriage continue to push the narrative that only heteronormativity is accepted in society. However, studies have shown that the percentage of the U.S. population with positive views on same-sex marriages increases annually (Ofosu et al., 2019). The structure of a family undergoes significant changes, expanding into a broader concept. Norms of society have no constant definition that passes from one generation to another, and LGBTQ communities have been a significant part of it for a long enough for people to accept them.
Moreover, opponents of gay marriage continue to argue that it is morally wrong. However, a family is one of the vital social constructs and provides a solid foundation for the moral beliefs of a person, and the lack of it increases the likelihood of morally wrong decisions (Wolff, 2017). The expansion of the marriage institute will only benefit society, as more children will be raised in a full family, whose members are able to provide adequate support.
A principal portion of arguments against same-sex marriages come from religious people who often refer to the Bible. Religious affiliation is one of the most defining characteristics of the opponents of gay couples. Holbrook (2020) describes that some of the Supreme Court Judges were arguing that “the Obergefell decision is a threat to religious liberties.” However, Holbrook (2020) states that “in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court rejected attempts to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples and embraced marriage equality.” Ofosu et al. (2019) state that “the U.S. Supreme Court adjudicated that the right to marry was fundamental and inalienable,” making its abolishment a violation of equal human rights. This acceptance shows that society has transformed past these outdated religious views.
The reasons for the legalization of same-sex marriage are based on progressive views. Therefore, abolishing these rights given to gay couples will imply embracing outdated ignorance and deprive a significant portion of the population of their rights. Modern society has transformed beyond this, and there is a widespread acceptance of equal rights for all people, including their sexual orientation.
In conclusion, the right of same-sex couples to marry can not be taken away since contemporary society has accepted and recognized it as a right of every individual. The conservative views that oppose this right are based on outdated morals and ignorance stemming from religious beliefs. Acceptance of same-sex marriage is a prevalent point of view in society, and democracy calls for the rule of the majority. Therefore, the protests of conservatives against this legalization are not meant to be taken into consideration by the Court. The unjustified oppression of same-sex couples has no place in the United States.
Holbrook, T. (2020). Same-sex marriage at risk as Supreme Court gets more conservative. CNN.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
Ofosu, E. K., Chambers, M. K., Chen, J. M., & Hehman, E. (2019). Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced implicit and explicit antigay bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(18), 8846-8851.
Wolff, K. (2017). “I do, I don’t”: The benefits and perils of legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States—One year later. Humanities, 6(2), 12.