FULL TEXT OF THE SPEECH OF ANSEL BELUSO AT THE SOGIE BILL HEARING

I am hereby granting the request of a lengthening list of people asking for a text copy of the statement I read
during the public hearing on the SOGIE Bill conducted by the Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family
Relations & Gender Equality last Wednesday, 4 September 2019 in the Sen. Jose Laurel Room of the Senate
of the Philippines.

***

Madame Chair, honorable members of the Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family Relations &
Gender Equality, good morning. I am here today representing Pro-Life Philippines and Couples for Christ
Foundation for Family & Life. Please note that Pro-Life Philippines has already submitted our position paper on
our opposition to the bill which is the subject of today’s public hearing, the SOGIE Bill

My name is Ansel Beluso. I am an ex-gay, which means I used to live a very active gay lifestyle but has since
chosen the path of change and renewal. I am happily and blissfully married to my wife Joyce for 18 years now;
we have three children Noel, Gian and JBen.

I have actually listed more than a dozen reasons why the entire Filipino nation should totally and unequivocally
reject the SOGIE Bill; but I want to zero in on just one this morning due to paucity of time.

Madame Chair, I humbly and most respectfully submit that, because of its official invention of special LGBTQI+
rights, the SOGIE Bill, when enacted into law, shall forcibly engender and perpetuate a culture of lies, deceit,
deception and duplicity into the life of our country and people. Madame Chair, allow me to mention only four of
these lies.

First lie: Genitals do not determine sex and gender. Wrong. Truth is, genitals do determine sex and gender.
Basic biology tells us that, in humans, biological sex and gender is determined by five factors present at birth:
the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal genitalia
(such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia. Nowhere in any scientific journal or biology textbook
can we find it said that sex and gender in humans can be determined otherwise. In fact, findings of a landmark
study done by a group of geneticists at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the University of Helsinki,
released last month, which examined the genomes of almost half a million people, indicate that there is no
such thing as a gay gene. In the case of transsexuals, if transwomen undergo a DNA test, the results will
irrevocably prove that they are still men.

Second lie: If a person has a homosexual orientation, the path to fullness of life is to embrace and live it out.
Wrong. Truth is, there is such a thing as gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the distress a person feels due
to a mismatch between their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth. The American Psychiatric
Association states that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. It further states that treatment for gender
dysphoria may involve supporting the person through changes in gender expression. Treatment may also
include counseling or psychotherapy. In other words, the real path to fullness of life for persons with gender
dysphoria, such as the transgenders, is treatment or therapeutic intervention – not genital mutilation and
hormone therapy.

Third lie: Change is impossible for persons with same-sex attraction. Wrong. Truth is, gays can change. And
we do change. According to Dr. Lisa Diamond, a top researcher of the American Psychological Association
(APA) and an avowed lesbian activist, sexuality desire is fluid, homosexual desire is not “hard-wired;” that
“born that way and can’t change” is a myth; feelings don’t overrule volition (behavior is a choice, one does not
need to act on every feeling — especially sexual feelings); the “born that way” argument is political, not
scientific; sexual orientation is subject to change.

Fourth lie: It is for the welfare of children with evident homosexual orientation that they be made to learn about
the LGBTQI+ ideology and guided to embrace the gay lifestyle — even at a very young age. Wrong. Truth is,
according to the document updated in September 2017 by Drs. Michelle A. Cretella and Quentin Van Meter,
President and Vice President respectively of the American College of Pediatricians, as well as Dr. Paul
McHugh, Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School, raising children in
an environment that espouses, promotes, propagates and institutionalizes the so-called gender ideology
actually harms them. (https://www.acpeds.org/…/pos…/gender-ideology-harms-children) It also says,
“Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex
is normal and healthful is child abuse.” The statement further states, “Endorsing gender discordance as normal
via public education and legal policies” is injurious to children.
 Madame Chair, I can go on and on but time is running out. In closing, may I humbly suggest that the so-called
LGBTQI+ ideology that the SOGIE Bill espouses and promotes is not a part of Filipino culture. One very basic
proof of this, we do not have a Tagalog word for bisexual or transgender or queer or intersex and all the other
terms used by the LGBTQI-JKLMNOP activists. This is alien to us as Filipinos. And I would like to echo the
message of Pope Francis in the Meeting of Families during his visit to our country in 2015. He said, “Resist
ideological colonization that tries to destroy the family.”

Madame Chair, thank you very much and may God bless and have mercy on us all.

menu
SECTIONS
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
search
TODAY'S PAPER
insert_drive_file






















 NEWS

 OPINION

 SPORTS

 LIFESTYLE

 ENTERTAINMENT

 BUSINESS

 TECHNOLOGY

 GLOBAL NATION
COLUMNISTS



SISYPHUS’ LAMENT

The best argument against

same-sex marriage
By: Oscar Franklin Tan - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 01:44 AM July 06, 2015

FILIPINOS, SPORTING #LoveWins hashtags and slapping rainbows onto their Facebook profile
pictures, have been swept up in the euphoria over the US Supreme Court decision declaring
same-sex marriage a fundamental human right. Law professors are heartened to see Justice
Anthony Kennedy’s poetic Obergefell decision shared in social media. However, we must also
read the powerful dissents and ask why we might prefer that our unelected justices decide this
sensitive issue instead of our elected legislators.

Inquirer 2bu quoted teenagers opining that anyone with the capacity to love deserves to have
his/her chosen relationship validated. Obergefell’s logic is equally simple. Forget “substantive
due process,” “decisional privacy” and “equal protection.” It takes the simple premise that
human liberty necessarily goes beyond physical liberty, and includes an unwritten right to
make fundamental life choices. Choosing a life partner is one such fundamental choice and the
decision of two people to formalize their relationship must be accorded utmost dignity.
ADVERTISEMENT

The typical arguments against this simple idea are so intellectually discredited that Obergefell
no longer discussed them. (My Philippine Law Journal article “Marriage through another lens,”
81 PHIL. L.J. 789 [2006], tried applying them to bisexual and transgender Filipinos.)

One cannot solely invoke religious doctrine, even if thinly veiled as secular “morality.” Religious
groups may confront this issue but not impose their choices on others. Their often vindictive
tone contrasts sharply with Kennedy’s, and increasingly alienates millennials who revel in
individuality. Those criticized as religious zealots should at least strive to be up-to-date, more
sophisticated religious zealots.
The most common argument, procreation, is also the easiest to refute. Philippine Family Code
author Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy wrote: “The [Code] Committee believes that marriage … may
also be only for companionship, as when parties past the age of procreation still get married.”

Another argument reduces marriage to a series of economic benefits and suggests a “domestic
partnership” system to govern same-sex couples’ property and other rights. This parallels
having separate schools for white and black children and claiming they are equal because both
have schools. It implies that some relationships so lack dignity that they must be called
something else.

Protecting the “traditional” definition of marriage is too subjective. Obergefell reminds that
traditional definitions evolve and once prohibited interracial and accepted arranged marriages,
and “it is unrealistic to conclude that an opposite-sex couple would choose not to marry simply
because same-sex couples may do so.”

Recent last-ditch arguments alleged harm to children. No party to Obergefell contested that
same-sex couples may build nurturing families after adopting or tapping medical advances to
produce babies with related DNA. Prohibiting same-sex marriage harms children by making
such families unstable, as only one parent may legally adopt and have rights in relation to a
child.

With all these discredited, the Obergefell dissents simply raised that marriage is so central a
social institution that it is better redefined by democratic process than unelected judges.
Proponents may consider opponents homophobic, bigoted, narrow-minded religious zealots,
but none of these disqualifies one from being a citizen. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that
proponents should have relied on how popular opinion was rapidly shifting in their favor than
ending all debate by court order.

Justice Antonin Scalia decried how the US Constitution was turned into a “fortune cookie” in a
“judicial Putsch” that declared a radical unwritten right. Roberts cautioned that the first cases
to use similar doctrine upheld slavery and struck down labor regulations in the name of laissez
faire economics. Although invoking human rights is not subject to an election, it is wise to
consult society in defining these, and Obergefell stressed the lengthy public debates the United
States experienced at every level.

One thus asks why an instant judicial solution is more appealing than backing Akbayan Rep.
Barry Gutierrez’s proposed same-sex marriage bill. The Philippines has not had serious public
debate given how we recently focused on reproductive health, and our high court has not even
explicitly recognized “decisional privacy.” Further, the petition to legalize same-sex marriage
recently filed at our high court is blatantly deficient.
ADVERTISEMENT

The petition (like the anti-RH petitions) does not even identify a client. There is no actual
Filipino same-sex couple, unlike the real Mr. Obergefell who sought to be named the spouse on
his partner’s death certificate after their deathbed wedding. This violates the most basic rule
that judicial power may only be used in an “actual case” and the high court should have
instantly thrown out the no-case petition (like the anti-RH petitions). The petition also has
 glaring errors (like the anti-RH petitions). It invoked the Philippine privacy decision Ople vs
Torres, which involved information in government databases and has nothing to do with the
“decisional privacy” of US same-sex marriage debates. Even liberals should be hard-pressed to
support this lest they be intellectually inconsistent and validate the anti-RH petitions’ worst
features.

Any citizen lacking the patience to back Gutierrez’s bill has every right to short-circuit
democracy by seeking an order from unelected judges. One hopes our high court insists that it
be sought properly.

***

React: oscarfranklin.tan@yahoo.com.ph, Twitter @oscarfbtan,

facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.

READ NEXT

Learning from London’s sense of ‘view’


01:30

Villar Claims NFA Campaigns Against Her Senatorial Bid


02:29

4 Million Bags Of Imported Rice Still At NFA Warehouses — Administrator


01:41

Robredo: Allegations In Sedition Case Are ‘Lies’


02:01

NCR Task Force For Peace Formally Created


03:00

NCRPO Chief Seeks Campus Lectures On ‘Evils Of Communism’


01:07

PNP Doesn’t Expect Surrender Of All Heinous Crime Convicts Freed Under GCTA


01:21

Dela Rosa On Convicts’ Early Release: Why Blame Us?


 03:04

Albayalde: SAF Not Allowing Contraband Inside NBP


01:39

8 Drug Convicts, Including Pastor, Linked In ‘Hospital Pass’ Scheme

Don't miss out on the latest news and information.

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen
to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.
RECOMMENDED


SponsoredUn'esperta linguistica spiega come imparare una lingua con 15 minuti di studio al…Babbel

SponsoredThis Brilliant Device Lets You Communicate In 40+ Languages Without…Next Tech

SponsoredDiscover the Most Luxurious Homes in DubaiMansion Global

SponsoredThis method only takes a few seconds a day but completely changes the…www.besthealthadvices.com

Kathryn on Daniel and Alden: They’re so different, but I love them both

SponsoredManhattan Home Sales Surge Ahead of Mansion Tax HikeMansion Global

Carla Abellana and Tom Rodriguez set to build their dream house

Anne Curtis on SOGIE bill: Equality is all LGBT+ community seeks

Sponsored25 Really Cool Products That You Don't Know AboutNext Tech

SponsoredBetter Than Solar Panels? Startling Invention Takes Nation By Storm!www.patriot-advance-report.com

 

SponsoredPhilippines: This New Air Conditioner With No Installation Necessary Is…Next Tech

TAGS: nation, news, Philippine Family Code, same-sex marriage, US Supreme Court

For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, contact us.

LATEST STORIESMOST READ

GLOBALNATION
Globe, OMB, AVIA-CAP aim #PlayItRight vs Illicit Streaming Devices
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 06:00 AM

NEWSINFO
Pork requests mar 2020 budget hearing
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 05:45 AM

NEWSINFO
Robredo urges Filipinos to break silence, indifference
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 05:43 AM

NEWSINFO
State workers hope Senate will approve just wage hike
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 05:36 AM

NEWSINFO
Duterte: PH in trouble if Robredo becomes president
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 05:31 AM

FROM AROUND THE WEB



Ivana Alawi denies giving escort services, slams…



LOOK: Toni Gonzaga, Vicki Belo, Hayden Kho fly to…



WATCH: Jodi Sta. Maria indulges in temple tours in…



Nadine Lustre bares what aspect of her appearance gives…

Recommended by

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent
with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

 THE INQUIRER CHANNELS

o News

o Sports
o Entertainment

o Lifestyle

o Technology

o Business

o Opinion

o Global Nation

 SERVICES

o Mobile

o RSS

o Email Us

o Archive

o Contact Us

o News Letter

o Job Openings

 THE INQUIRER COMPANY

o About INQUIRER.net

o About the INQUIRER

o User Agreement

o Link Policy

o Privacy Policy

o Article Index

 PARTNERS

o Libre

o Hinge Inquirer

o Bandera

o Cebu Daily News

o DZIQ990 AM

o Motion Cars

© Copyright 1997-2019 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of
cookies. To find out more, please click this link.
I Agree

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/86450/the-best-argument-against-same-sex-

 marriage#ixzz5zAcOTu46
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Same-Sex Marriage: An Introduction

Posted on January 29, 2013 by Kelsey Wetzel

The issue of same-sex marriage is an argument that all of us have heard, and most of us have strong
opinions on. I know very few people that don’t have a preference of legalization or not. Personally, I
believe that homosexuals should be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples. As Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. said, “marriage is a basic human right. You cannot tell people they cannot fall in love.”
While he said this in reference to marriage between races, the same can be said about homosexuals.
Who are we to allow some people to get married, and tell others they cannot. However, regardless of
my beliefs, I would first like to provide some background on the history of same-sex marriage.

Years ago, homosexuality was unacceptable. Most that were gay hid it from others and did not act
upon it. They married the opposite gender to live out a “normal” life. There are many instances of
homosexuals being prosecuted and discriminated against. At one point, homosexuality was
considered a mental illness as recognized by the DSM of Psychology. Slowly, being gay became more
acceptable, and homosexuals fought for more rights, and eventually the right to marry.

The fight for the allowance of same-sex marriages has been a long process, and just recently the issue
is coming more into the light of current politics. In 1942, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, the US Supreme
Court ruled that marriage is one of the basic civil rights. Civil Rights are rights that cover all genders,
no matter the sexuality of the individual. Another Supreme Court case in 1967, Loving v.
Virginia, affirmed that “the freedom to marry has long since been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” These court cases have
paved the way for same-sex couples to fight for equal marriage rights, and were the catalysts that gave
homosexuals some hope to right for their right to marry.
In 1993 in Hawaii, Judge Kevin Chang ruled that there was no good reason to deny marriage licenses
to gay couples. Although the Hawaiian legislature then amended their constitution to ban gay
marriage, this was the first instance where a decision was made in favor of it. On May 17, 2004,
Massachusetts became the first state to grant marriage licenses to gay couples. Since then, 9 states
plus Washington D.C. have legalized gay marriage. Some states, however, can’t seem to make up their
minds on the issue of same-sex marriage.

California is for most of us the state that comes to mind when the issue of same-sex marriage comes
about. California especially has held an extremely irresolute stand on the issue. In 2004, San
Francisco Mayor Newsom ordered marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples, although these
were later deemed invalid. When the Californian legislature passed a legalizing bill, Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger immediately vetoed it. In 2008, the Californian Supreme Court ruled that marriage
must be equally available to all types of couples, and same-sex couples were allowed marriage licenses
until Proposition 8 was passed, again banning gay marriage. These events illustrate the strong
divisions between supporters and opponents of the issue. California seems to be teasing homosexuals,
getting their hopes up only to tear them back down again. Could they please just make up their mind
already?

On a more federal level, Bill Clinton passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which stated that the federal
government defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but does not require any states
to accept this definition nor does it ban any state from allowing same-sex marriage. However, federal
opinion can greatly sway the opinions of state legislatures. Opponents of same-sex marriage have
been trying to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to the US constitution, officially defining
marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, but have (luckily) failed to gain support.

Supporters of gay marriage have fought a long battle, and gone through lots of ups and downs.
Hopefully, in the next years, gay marriage will be legal, and we will see it as Dr. Martin Luther King
once dreamed we would see marriage between whites and blacks-a completely normal.

Sites:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/
http://www.datehookup.com/content-the-history-of-samesex-marriage.htm
http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

An Overview of the
Same-Sex Marriage
Debate
Updated Nov. 21, 2008

In this article:
The Debate Begins
The Goodridge Case and Its Aftermath

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ignited a nationwide debate in late 2003 when it ruled
that the state must allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. Almost overnight, same-sex marriage
became a major national issue, pitting religious and social conservatives against gay-rights advocates
and their allies. Over the next year, the ensuing battle over gay marriage could be heard in the halls of
the U.S. Congress, in dozens of state legislatures and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at the
national and state level.

The debate over same-sex marriage shows no signs of abating. For instance, on Nov. 4, 2008, voters
in California, Florida and Arizona approved ballot initiatives amending their state constitutions to ban
same-sex marriage. The vote in California was particularly notable since it came just six months after
the state’s Supreme Court had ruled that the state constitution guarantees gays and lesbians the right
to wed. California voters’ approval of the ballot initiative, known as Proposition 8, takes away the
marriage rights granted in the recent state high court decision. Gay rights advocates have already
petitioned the California Supreme Court seeking to invalidate the initiative and hence preserve gay
marriage. On Nov. 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear this case. The parties will
submit their briefs by the end of 2008, but the court is not expected to issue its ruling on the matter
for several months. (See The Constitutional Dimensions of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate.)
Supporters of same-sex marriage contend that gay and lesbian couples should be treated no
differently than their heterosexual counterparts and that they should be able to marry like anyone
else. Beyond wanting to uphold the principle of nondiscrimination and equal treatment, supporters
say that there are very practical reasons behind the fight for marriage equity. They point out, for
instance, that homosexual couples who have been together for years often find themselves without the
basic rights and privileges that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples who legally marry –
from the sharing of health and pension benefits to hospital visitation rights.

Social conservatives and others who oppose same-sex unions assert that marriage between a man and
a woman is the bedrock of a healthy society because it leads to stable families and, ultimately, to
children who grow up to be productive adults. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, they argue,
will radically redefine marriage and further weaken it at a time when the institution is already in deep
trouble due to high divorce rates and the significant number of out-of-wedlock births. Moreover, they
predict, giving gay couples the right to marry will ultimately lead to granting people in polygamous
and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry as well.

The American religious community is deeply divided over the issue of same-sex marriage. The
Catholic Church and evangelical Christian groups have played a leading role in public opposition to
gay marriage, while mainline Protestant churches and other religious groups wrestle with whether to
ordain gay clergy and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Indeed, the ordination and marriage of
gay persons has been a growing wedge between the socially liberal and conservative wings of the
Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, leading some conservative congregations and even whole
dioceses to break away from their national churches. (See Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Gay
Marriage.)
What is the difference between civil unions, domestic partnerships and marriage?
Vermont created civil unions in response to a 1999 ruling by the state’s Supreme Court ordering the
legislature to provide same-sex couples “the common benefits and protections that flow from
marriage under Vermont law.” Connecticut in April 2005 voluntarily became the second state to
adopt civil unions. New Jersey in February 2007 began issuing licenses for civil unions after its
legislature – within weeks of an October 2006 state high court ruling similar to Vermont’s – opted to
adopt civil unions rather than marriage for same-sex couples. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D)
signed a law in May 2007 approving civil unions. Civil union laws in both New Jersey and New
Hampshire recognize civil unions performed in other states.

California and Oregon have nearly identical schemes that allow couples to register as domestic
partners and claim all of the state benefits conferred on husbands and wives. California’s law was
enacted in 1999 and extended to include all benefits in 2005. Oregon’s law was enacted in 2007.
Washington has a domestic partnership law – adopted in 2007 and expanded in 2008 – that includes
most, but not all marital benefits. In a third category, Hawaii (1997) and Maine (2004) have registries
that convey only a handful of benefits, including hospital visitation rights and inheritance without a
will.

Unlike traditional marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships are invalid outside the state in
which they are granted – except in states that expressly accept them – and do not provide any federal
marriage benefits. Federal protections conferred by marriage include 1,138 laws and policies, such as
Social Security, family medical leave, federal taxation and immigration policy.

Reprinted from Stateline.org.

Polls show that frequency of worship service attendance is a factor in the opposition to gay marriage.
According to an August 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew
Research Center for the People & the Press, 55% of Americans oppose gay marriage, with 36%
favoring it. But those with a high frequency of church attendance oppose it by a substantially wider
margin (73% in opposition vs. 21% in favor). Opposition among white evangelicals, regardless of
frequency of church attendance, is even higher – at 81%. A majority of black Protestants (64%) and
Latino Catholics (52%)[*] also oppose gay marriage, as do pluralities of white, non-Hispanic Catholics
(49%) and white mainline Protestants (47%). Only among Americans without a religious affiliation
does a majority (60%) express support.
However, a 2006 Pew survey found that sizable majorities of white mainline Protestants (66%),
Catholics (63%) and those without a religious affiliation (78%) favor allowing homosexual couples to
enter into civil unions that grant most of the legal rights of marriage without the title. The general
public also supports civil unions (54% in favor vs. 42% in opposition). As with gay marriage, white
evangelicals (66%), black Protestants (62%) and frequent church attenders (60%) stand out for their
opposition to civil unions. (See A Stable Majority: Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage.)
The same-sex marriage debate is not solely an American phenomenon. Many countries, especially in
Europe, have grappled with the issue as well. And since 2001, five nations – the Netherlands,
Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa – have legalized gay marriage. In addition, Norway is slated
to allow same-sex marriage at the beginning of 2009. (See Same-Sex Marriage: Redefining Marriage
Around the World.)
The Debate Begins
Gay Americans have been calling for the right to marry, or at least to create more formalized
relationships, since the 1960s, but same-sex marriage has only emerged as a national issue in the last
15 years. The spark that started the debate came from Hawaii in 1993 when the state’s Supreme Court
ruled that an existing law banning same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional unless the state
government could show that it had a compelling reason for discriminating against gay and lesbian
couples.

Even though this decision did not immediately lead to the legalization of gay marriage in the state (the
case was sent back to a lower court for further consideration), it did spark a nationwide backlash.
Over the next decade, legislatures in more than 40 states passed what are generally called Defense of
Marriage Acts (DOMAs), which define marriage solely as the union between a man and a woman.
Today, 41 states have DOMAs on the books. In addition, in 1996 the U.S. Congress passed, and
President Bill Clinton signed, a federal DOMA that defines marriage for purposes of federal law as the
union between a man and a woman. The law also asserts that no state can be forced to legally
recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

Beginning in the late 1990s, Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada amended their state constitutions to
prohibit same-sex marriage. These constitutional changes were aimed at taking the issue out of the
hands of judges. Conservatives, in particular, feared that without constitutional language specifically
defining marriage, many judges would take it upon themselves to read other constitutional provisions
broadly and “create” a right to same-sex marriage.

Amid widespread efforts in many states to prevent same-sex marriage, there was at least one notable
victory for gay-rights advocates during this period. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that
gay and lesbian couples are entitled to all of the rights and protections associated with marriage.
However, the court left it up to the state legislature to determine how to grant these rights to same-sex
couples. The following year, the Vermont legislature approved a bill granting gay and lesbian couples
the right to form civil unions. Under Vermont’s law, same-sex couples who enter into a civil union
accrue all the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage, though they are not technically
married.

The Goodridge Case and its Aftermath

Although the debate over gay marriage for a while seemed to fade from the public eye, the issue was
suddenly and dramatically catapulted back into the headlines in November 2003 when the highest
state court in Massachusetts ruled that the state’s constitution guaranteed gay and lesbian couples the
right to marry. Unlike the Vermont high court’s decision four years earlier, the ruling in this
case, Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, left the legislature no options, requiring it
to pass a law granting full marriage rights to same-sex couples. (See From Griswold to Goodridge: The
Constitutional Dimensions of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate.)
In the days and weeks following the 2003 Massachusetts decision, some cities and localities –
including San Francisco; Portland, Ore.; and New Paltz, N.Y. – began issuing marriage licenses to gay
couples. Television images of long lines of same-sex couples waiting for marriage licenses outside of
government offices led some social conservatives and others to predict that same-sex unions would
soon be a reality in many parts of the country. But these predictions proved premature.

To begin with, all the marriage licenses issued to gay couples outside of Massachusetts were later
nullified since none of the mayors and other officials involved had the authority to grant marriage
licenses to same-sex couples. More significantly, the Massachusetts decision led to another major
backlash at the federal and state level. In the U.S. Congress, conservative lawmakers, with support
from President Bush, attempted to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have
banned same-sex marriage nationwide. But efforts to obtain the two-thirds majority needed in both
houses to pass the amendment fell short in 2004 and again in 2006.

Gay-marriage opponents had better luck at the state level, where voters in 13 states passed referenda
in 2004 amending their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. Thirteen additional states took
the same step in 2005, 2006 and 2008, bringing the total number of states with amendments
prohibiting gay marriage to 29. To date, only New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island have no law
either banning or allowing gay marriage.

The same-sex marriage debate may have had an impact on the outcome of the 2004 presidential
election. Ohio, which in 2004 was holding a referendum on a constitutional ban on gay marriage, was
the state that ultimately gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to beat Sen. John Kerry.
Bush, who narrowly won the state, opposed gay marriage and supported a federal constitutional
amendment banning it. Kerry also came out against gay marriage but opposed the constitutional ban
and supported civil unions. It has been noted that the president’s share of the black vote in Ohio (16
percent) was more than his share of the black vote nationwide (11 percent). Many political analysts
attribute Bush’s narrow victory in Ohio at least in part to the fact that some pastors, particularly black
pastors, made same-sex marriage a campaign issue, prompting more of their congregants to vote for
Bush.

Most of the states that approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage are in the more
socially conservative South and Midwest, although, as already noted, voters in California narrowly
approved a ban in November 2008. In other more socially liberal states, the cause for same-sex
marriage has fared somewhat better. Since 2005, three Northeastern states – Connecticut, New
Hampshire and New Jersey – have joined Vermont and passed laws authorizing civil unions. In
addition, Maine, Oregon, Washington state and California enacted domestic partnership statutes that
grant many, though not all, the benefits of marriage to registered domestic partners. In 2006, the
California legislature also passed legislation authorizing same-sex marriage – so far the only state
legislature to do so. But the measure was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that the
issue was best left to the judiciary. Finally, in 2008, the California and Connecticut Supreme Courts
ruled that their state constitutions granted marriage rights to same-sex couples.

During this time, courts in other states considered the issue, but all declined to follow Massachusetts’
lead and mandate same-sex marriage. Indeed, until the California and Connecticut rulings, a number
of top courts in more socially liberal states – New York, Washington state and Maryland – had
rejected arguments that favored gay unions.

Gay marriage advocates had hoped that their victories in the California and Connecticut high courts
would give their cause a boost. Indeed, days after the California decision was handed down in May,
New York’s governor, David Paterson, issued a directive ordering state officials to recognize same-sex
marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions – which, at the time, included California,
Massachusetts and foreign countries, such as Canada and Spain.

However, the November 2008 passage of the state ballot initiatives banning gay marriage,
particularly in California, was a major blow to gay rights advocates. The result in California was
especially difficult since it reversed the May 2008 state Supreme Court decision to grant gays and
lesbians full marital rights. The vote’s importance is further magnified by the fact that California is the
nation’s most populous state and is often considered a cultural bellwether for the rest of the nation.

For gay marriage opponents, the recent victories in California, Florida and Arizona give rise to the
hope that the momentum in this debate has squarely shifted to their side. But while it is hard to know
who will win the next round in the battle over same sex marriage, it is safe to assume that the issue
will remain part of the nation’s legal and political landscape for years to come.

* Source: “Changing Faiths: Latinos and the Transformation of American Religion,” Pew Forum and
Pew Hispanic Center, conducted in 2006 and published in 2007
This report was written by David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Same-Sex Marriage
Argumentative Essay
09 November 2016
by Writingpaper in Other
Without any exaggeration, it is a highly-discussed topic today. People were divided into groups of supporters and
opponents of such practice. Both have strong and persuasive arguments. If same-sex marriage is legalized, the
world will be changed entirely; it can’t be argued. Here are several points for and against that legalizing.

Support Human’s Freedoms

All people should have a right to marry someone who he or she likes in spite of sexual identity. However, when one
speaks about such kind of freedom, one rarely thinks about homosexuals. Why? As they are citizens of a certain
country, they have own duties and surely they should have a right to choose whom to marry. So, it is fair to make
gay marriages legal.

Respect Minority
To provide peace between different social groups in the country, minorities’ rights have to be respected. It doesn’t
mean that they will dictate rules for the major community, but that way all citizens will be able to leave in equality
and placidity. Moreover, lives of ordinary people will not be affected by legalizing of homosexual marriage in point of
fact.

Family Structure
If parents are homosexual, it doesn’t mean that family is unnatural or defective. Spousal duties can be divided as
well. What’s more, such couples can adopt kids and save them from the unpleasant orphanhood, giving them love
and care as traditional families usually do. The research has proved that a gay pair can raise and educate the child
to be humane, tolerant and respectful to others. The point that their parents are homosexuals doesn’t make kids
maladaptive or unequal.

No Prejudgments
Since gay marriages are validated, there will be less stereotyping and prejudgments. The society will see and
understand that such couples can be successful parents and happy with their family life. As a result, less
homosexual people will suffer from somebody’s sayings or evil jokes, and community will become stronger and
healthier.
However, there are several arguments that show legalizing in bad light.

Changing Roles
There is an opinion that gay marriage is harmful for society as it reverses roles in family life. Men start to act like
women and vice versa. That will make the community weak and vulnerable. Of course, it may sound unfair, but
there are certain masculine and feminine professions. For example, man will be better in welder’s or plumber’s
profession anyway. Moreover, kids can get wrong education, and it will badly affect their future. Boys should be
definitely taught that girls are weaker and it is inexcusably to hurt them.
 Demographic Crisis
As gay couples are not physically able to give a birth to children, increasing of such marriages can lead to the
demographic crisis. Furthermore, for homosexuals it can be more complicated to adopt a child than for a traditional
pair.

Immorality
For many people, same-sex marriages are immoral; they say it destructs the conception of marriage at all and leads
to depravation of nation. Homosexuality is often compared to various sexual deviations as well. Moreover, for most
religions, it is inacceptable and may cause conflicts in society.
Summing up, there are lots of arguments for and against; however, some of them are myths or inaccuracies. The
point is that rights of all people should be respected and nobody can be singled out for their statements or sexual
orientation.

But What If My Attitude Is Neutral

Let us assume that you may neither support nor oppose the idea of gay marriage. How should you develop the topic
in this case? We are going to consider a few handy suggestions and facts which can help you to state your neutral
point of view and, at the same time, to provide quite a fulfilling review of such controversial issue.

Suggestion #1: Just Write It Frankly

There is no doubt that the marriage between two people of the same sex is a risky question to answer it very
definitely. Besides, you may be not very aware of the issue or even not interested in it. Surely, you should not
include statements like these in your essay. However, you can stay frank and just write that you personally are
neither for nor against legalization and the very phenomenon of the gay marriage.
In order to sound less careless of the subject you should muse over and yet more informed on it generally, you
should take into account all the ideas that are put forward by those who do and do not support same-sex marriages.
So, you can search for several different opinions, describe and analyze them, and then explain why none of them is
powerful enough to make you take one particular side.
You should remember that there is actually nothing bad about you if you have not come up with your own clear and
definite view on this matter. It just means that you can be ranked among those who “don’t know/are neutral/have no
answer/other” (underline what applicable). No joking! You can look through the Wikipedia article dedicated to this
topic and see the real statistics.

Suggestion #2: Base on the Similar Opinion Expressed by a

Respected Person
Definitely, you are not the only one who has such neutral attitude to the issue discussed. However, even if your
nearest and dearest, your friends and favorite teachers also stick to neutrality, you still should not refer to them.
Instead, you can take the trouble to search for the opinions of respected scientists in the Net and use them as quite
a solid base for yours.
Also, you can base on reliable and widely known online media sources, as they usually present either the statistical
data, the results of real surveys or just quote the words of sociologists, psychologists, doctors and other specialists.
Still, you should forget about the two opposite sides of the argument, so even though you are neutral, you cannot
but consider how these two sides protect their positions.

Suggestion #3: Try to Explain What You Base Your Opinion On

Despite the fact that you do not consider yourself either an adherer or an opponent of the idea that two guys or two
girls can live a happy family life and raise adopted children, still there should be some reasons for your neutrality. It
is really worth expressing them in your essay, as they can provide really valid explanation of why your own position.
However, you should not forget about the main tendencies concerning the issue. Let us set a few examples:

 you may take the gay marriage just as a fact without assessing it and evaluating its influence on the society;
 you may also consider that today we need to study the original reasons of such life choice more in order to
come up with reasonable arguments and evidence regarding the dilemma of whether it is moral or immoral,
good or bad;
 speaking more pathetically, you may set the range of examples of much more immoral deeds the mankind
can be accused of, and consider the modern issue of gay marriages in contrast with them.

A Few Final General Recommendations

Whichever side you take, you should try to stick to the following:

 stay humane and polite: your opinion cannot offense any other side of this argument;
 provide as much reliable evidence as possible: on the Internet you will discover that the links to articles for
gay marriages and against them just take turns;
 regardless of the opinion you personally support, consider that of your opponents: firstly, you will
demonstrate your awareness of another point of view; secondly, you can use it as a basis for building your
own ideas.