Argument: Gay marriage is beneficial where it exists today
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Alliance Defense Fund on Opposing Views.com. Retrieved 3.1.2010: "Massachusetts no longer shuts committed same-sex couples out of marriage. The sky has not fallen, and actually communities are better off, because promoting responsibility is good for everyone. As observed by the Massachusetts newspaper The Republican, “even some of [the] most vocal opponents have come to realize that the controversy over [allowing access to] marriage was a lot of fuss about nothing.” In fact, The Boston Globe reported that in the first election after the discrimination ended, “every challenger to a supporter of gay marriage was defeated.”
On the anniversary of the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in Massachusetts, the Globe declared in a May 17, 2005, editorial that “[i]t strains the imagination to see how a year of [allowing access to] marriage has caused the state any discernible harm.” Relating to the fuss raised over so-called traditional marriage, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas that the argument for “preserving the traditional institution of marriage . . . is just a kinder way” of expressing disapproval of same-sex couples."
Scott Bidstrup. "Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives": "These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Indeed, in 1989, when the proposal to legalize marriage between gays first was proposed in Denmark, the majority of the clergy were opposed. Now, after having seen the benefits to the partners and to society, they are overwhelmingly in favor, according to the surveys done then and now."
Christopher Ott. "Banning same-sex marriage would protect no one." Progressive.org. February 8, 2005: "Last May, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian couples. Opponents of equality warned of dire consequences. But, predictably, the sky hasn't fallen.
Bush and others claim that they want to "protect" the institution of marriage. But it's clearer than ever that equality is no threat.
No one loses any legal protections when the same protections are extended to gay and lesbian couples. Ensuring equality doesn't mean there's less to go around for everyone else."