Some heterosexual people do understand that homosexuals just want the same rights that marriage brings, however it is their religion that is very against it. There are many religions that are strongly against legalization of gay marriage, such as strict Catholics. However, there are also religions that highly support it too, such as Buddhist (Bidstrup, 2000, p. 5). “Every religion can decide for itself whether to perform or honor any marriage,” says Evan Wofson, a longtime gay-rights litigator, “but no religion should be able to dictate who gets a civil marriage license” (Jost, 2004, p.2). Then there is the issue of marriage being a sacred institution. This is based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to “sanctify” marriages, a fundamentally religious idea. This attempt to go against gay marriages goes against everything that the First Amendment stands for. “One does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well” (Bidstrup, 2000, p. 6).

Opponents of gay marriage also like to say that marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. Heterosexuals are right in the fact that marriage between a man and a women has been around for centuries. Gay marriages will not destroy the traditional marriage because the traditional marriage is already destroyed with more than a fifty percent divorce rate (Hunt, 2003, p.A19). Also, traditions in this country have been broken before, so who is to say that the marriage tradition can not also be broken. “Slavery was an institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginning of human history. By the 19th century, humankind had realized the evils of that institution, and has since largely abolished it” (Bidstrup, 2000, p. 3). Why not recognize the truth; that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction?

The definition of marriage is a touchy subject with heterosexuals. Who is marriage defined by? It seems that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it should not be denied. “The definition of marriage is just like an expression of prejudice than any kind of real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights” (Bidstrup, 2000, p. 3). We cannot just let one definition separate two groups of people. Not everyone is being able to exercise their rights when one group is not being allowed to show their full commitment to one another by not being able to marry and also not giving them the same opportunities, just because they look at the world a little differently.

or gays, many are not okay with the legalization of gay marriages in the United States. The argument against gay marriages usually begins with the definition of marriage. In the dictionary marriage is defined as, “the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife (Morehead, 1995, p.419).” Nowhere does it say that marriage can also be between two men or two women. Opponents of gay marriage say that if we change the definition and all

Some topics in this essay:
Bush Bush, Evan Wofson, , Margaret Marshall, Family Institution, International Edition”, Brendan James, James Brendan, Buddhist Bidstrup, gay marriage, gay couples, definition marriage, Brendan Daly, gay marriages, bidstrup 2000, sex marriage, heterosexual couples, insurance companies, jost 2004, civil union, common law marriage, marriage gay couples, hunt 2003 pa19, bidstrup 2000 3, opponents gay marriage,