Case Study: Clams about Gay Marriage Essay

This case study focuses on the gay jointures in different states. In Massachusetts the State Supreme court had a ruling that the state constitution did not agree with same-sex man and wifes. The however way they could grant licenses was if the legislative acted to give same-sex espousals. After this ruling in Massachusetts in San Francisco, California the mayor ruled that they could not deny same-sex marriages. Many same-sex couples began to apply for marriage licenses and got the marriage license. The gay marriages started to attract the media and many television cameras. Soon subsequently the California State Supreme Court said that the San Francisco mayor had exceeded his power and they told the city to stop issuing these state marriage licenses to gay couples. Courts in another(prenominal) states followed the Massachusetts ruling not allowing same-sex marriages. It then began to report that other foreign countries were allowing same-sex marriages to become legal.This starte d controversy in the United States because people in America think back of marriage in a very sensitive way and that commitment it between two people who love each other. Advocates of gay marriage precious to know why when two people are in love that they couldnt be married. This began to raise issues for gay marriage not being legalized. Advocates were communicate out that it not only is close the commitment between the two people but also about the legal rights that the couples would obtain. The gay couples wanted the rights that a couple of a married man and women would get. They wanted to be able to get the medical rights and property rights of other normal married couples. Advocates also argued that they bemuse their freedom also and they have the right to be in love with whomever they choose to be in love with.They just wanted the same compare as every hotshot else. In others terms they stated that same-sex marriage was wrong and it shouldnt be allowed in the state. The argument then began again about marriage should be between one man and one cleaning woman. They also began to state that children that come from a household of a man and woman being married benefited them. They believed that if same-sex marriage became legal there would become a downfall in society.It wasnt about the rights and freedom of same-sex couples but the image that America was to hold and how society is taught that one man and one woman should be married. In elections later in 2004 and 2006 conservative politicians wanted to have a same-sex marriage amendment to forbid it. The arguments for and against gay marriage became more and more heated as the years went on. As votes were shown most people wanted civil union laws. When the vote for same-sex marriage came about only a minority was for it. Gay and lesbian couples began to arrange ceremonies that were not legal unless legally allowed in the state. To this day debates, arguments, and court cases still go on about the fig ht for gay marriage.Questions1. What grounds, warrants, and conclusions do advocates for gay marriage and their opponents use?The advocates say that besides two people being in love and making a commitment but that same-sex couples should have the freedom to love whomever they choose have the rights as any other one man and one woman married couple were to have. The opponents believe that for reasons for society and to keep the image and to not cause a downfall in America that only a man and woman should be legally married.2. How did claims favor of gay marriage evolve from those of the earliest advocates to the more recent campaigns after the ruling by the Massachusetts state autonomous court?I believe that the Massachusetts ruling was part of the start that caused the claims to start and from all of this evolved the more recent campaigns and the issues coming from gay marriage.3. How did opponents to gay marriage change their counterclaims to respond to new arguments by advocates of gay rights?The opponents changed their counterclaims because they had to be able to have an argument back to the new responses of the gay rights advocates.