Sex marriage Essay Example

demise because their vows and ring exchange ceremony were not recognized by the government. Although AT contended that not having a spouse did not constitute discrimination since there were already existing benefits for married couples, Rovira encountered discriminatory treatment simply because she could not marry her partner. The legalization of their marriage would have granted them the same privileges as heterosexual married couples.

Marriage encompasses several rights and responsibilities such as official acknowledgment of the sexual union, financial obligations, child custody and adoption rights, support for children, constitutional significance, insurable interests in each other's lives, next-of-kin status during medical emergencies, and inheritance rights. It is argued that all couples regardless of sexual orientation should have access to these rights on account of their love for one another. This argument was exemplified in a 1988 lawsuit where three homosexual teachers in New York claimed they faced discrimination from the Board of Education due to unequal benefits compared to heterosexual married couples.In 1862, Charles Darwin acknowledged the unknown purpose of sexuality. Biologists led by Dean Hamer from the National Institutes of Health conducted studies challenging the belief that the origins of homosexuality are unclear. In 1993 and 1995, Hamer conducted two studies exploring biological influences on sexual orientation. His findings suggest a genetic predisposition to homosexuality in men due to inherited genes on a specific region called Xq28 within the X-chromosome. These studies observed a higher likelihood of matching in the Xq28 region among gay brothers compared to chance, with gene matches found in 82% and 67% of pairs respectively. The second study also included heterosexual brothers of gay individuals. However, George Ebers disagreed with Hamer's exclusive focus

on the X-chromosome and conducted his own study involving gay brothers but found no evidence linking it specifically to mothers and sons within the X-chromosome. According to Hamer, Ebers' subject selection did not allow for maternal inheritance flow. Odenwald and Zhang claimed they induced homosexuality in male fruit flies by increasing serotonin levels, though there is currently no evidence linking serotonin to human sexual orientation. Research in 1991 showed that identical twins had a higher likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference compared to other types of siblings.In addition, a Californian scientist discovered slight brain differences between gay and heterosexual men. Bailey and Pillard conducted the only genetics study on homosexuality that accounted for adoption. This study examined the impact of environment on sexual orientation and also shed light on the genetic aspect. Bailey and Pillard gathered data on the sexual preferences of identical twins, fraternal twins, non-twin brothers, and adopted siblings who were not biologically related. Over half of the identical twins shared the same sexual orientation while only 22% of fraternal twins did, indicating that genes are a contributing factor but not solely determinative. Interestingly, nearly half of identical twin brothers had different orientations despite their shared genetic makeup. The study provided evidence suggesting that 11% of adopted brothers shared a homosexual orientation with their siblings compared to only 2-5% in the general population. The text implies that sexual orientation is not exclusively determined by genetics but also influenced by environmental factors, as stated in The Hastings Center Report (1997). There are three genetic models for understanding sexual orientation: the indirect model proposes that genes influence homosexuality in certain environments while promoting heterosexuality

in others; meanwhile, the direct model suggests that genes alone determine sexual orientation.The permissive effect model suggests that genes play a role in homosexuality but require environmental influences. This discovery of a potential "gay gene" may be seen as threatening by conservative religious groups who oppose homosexuality. However, if there is evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality, it challenges societal stigma and implies its naturalness to some extent. This would make it more difficult to discriminate against or deny benefits to homosexuals, similar to characteristics such as hair color or race. If homosexuality is considered innate and unchangeable, the United States government would not be able to deny homosexuals their rights. Nevertheless, the existence of a "gay gene" could have severe consequences. Certain Catholic churches have implemented programs aimed at "curing" homosexuality, which are often forced upon gay individuals seeking refuge from discrimination and homophobia. These programs utilize harsh methods like hormonal therapies, electroshock treatment, genital mutilation, and brain surgery. Hitler's Nazi Germany attempted to eliminate homosexuals under the belief that homosexuality was inherited and hindered the creation of a superior race. Many gays fear that their sexual orientation will be viewed as a defect requiring correction.
Martin Duberman, from the Center of Lesbian and Gay Studies at City University of New York, cautions that any discoveries regarding a "gay gene" could be distorted for homophobic purposes. If it is confirmed that genetics or hormones have an influence on homosexuality, there may be increased pressure to address this aspect. The Traditional Values Coalition in Anaheim, California has expressed their intention to "correct" any verified genetic defect associated with homosexuality. This raises apprehension within the gay

community that expectant mothers might choose to terminate their pregnancy upon learning about potential homosexuality in the child. Additionally, there is concern over heightened workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation if a specific gene related to homosexuality is confirmed. Currently, one's sexual preference cannot be determined solely by appearance or a small blood sample; however, if conclusive studies establish the existence of a gay gene, this could change. Nevertheless, some critics contest the existence of such a gene and accuse researcher Hamer of potentially manipulating data in his studies. Researcher George Ebers at the University of Western Ontario is publicly questioning and investigating Hamer's research. Ebers is conducting a study to replicate Hamer's findings and claims to have arrived at a different conclusion. The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is also examining Hamer's initial study following concerns raised by a former lab worker regarding the research methods (Science, 1995).The question of whether homosexuality is hereditary raises various issues, including the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA was enacted in 1996 and has two main purposes: defining marriage and granting states the authority to determine their recognition of same-sex marriage (Weekly compilation of Presidential Documents, 1996). Section 1738C specifies that no state, territory, possession, or Indian tribe is obligated to recognize any public act or legal proceeding from another jurisdiction regarding a same-sex relationship considered as marriage under the laws of that jurisdiction. Section 7 of DOMA defines 'marriage' as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, while 'spouse' refers exclusively to an opposite-sex individual who is a husband or wife. Supporters argue that DOMA protects individuals' moral rights and

express concerns about potential conflicts with the American legal system if same-sex marriage were legalized. They also believe it prevents children from growing up with the perception that homosexuality is acceptable. These proponents assert that allowing gay marriage would be seen as endorsing sacrilegious behavior, according to Christianity Today in 1997. Additionally, Article Four, Section One of the Constitution includes the Full Faith and Credit Clause which mandates each state to honor and respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states.The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that a license obtained in one state is valid in all states, while Congress has the authority to define how one state's laws affect another. However, this does not give them the power to take away a state's right to choose. Nonetheless, DOMA did strip away that right by refusing to recognize another state's laws without valid reasons. Interstate marriages are typically acknowledged if they are considered valid where they were celebrated. The Full Faith and Credit Clause prevents discriminatory treatment between states based on differing opinions of other states' policies.

According to the Yale Law Journal in 1997, it is impermissible for a state to selectively enforce marriage evasion statutes solely against same-sex marriages. This prohibition arises from Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any state from enacting laws that infringe upon U.S. citizens' privileges or rights. These include denial of due process, denial of equal protection under the law within a state's jurisdiction, and denial of life, liberty, or property.

Both the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and all fifty states that prohibit same-sex marriage violate individuals' rights to liberty and pursuit of

happiness as every U.S. citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law. Discrimination against gay individuals based on their sexual orientation is not permissible.

In my personal viewpoint, there may be genetic factors influencing homosexuality; however, its development is also indirectly influenced by one's environment and society.If an individual possesses a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality but is unable to openly express it due to their social circumstances, they may opt for a heterosexual lifestyle while suppressing their true feelings for someone of the same sex. For instance, a man raised in the Bible Belt with the homosexual gene resulting from his Catholic upbringing could potentially marry a woman and unknowingly repress his authentic sexual orientation. Conversely, if a man grows up in New York City with the homosexual gene, he is more likely to recognize and embrace his orientation early on. While psychological factors hold greater sway over sexual preference than physical factors do, environment and society still exert significant influence. Although some individuals possess an innate inclination toward homosexuality, this alone does not dictate their sexual orientation; environmental and societal factors also contribute to its formation. This becomes evident when comparing individuals from the same town or family as their orientations often differ. However, identical twins tend to share the same preference more frequently. The growing body of research indicating a genetic component in homosexuality is viewed favorably by advocates of gay rights.The concern of using genetic knowledge to selectively abort based on sexual orientation is unlikely due to the opposition from those who vehemently oppose homosexuality and abortion, particularly among religious conservatives. Even individuals who oppose gay marriage but not gay people would

still hold conservative views and would not choose abortion either. Discrimination against homosexuality persists regardless of whether its genetic basis has been scientifically proven or not.

Many argue that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional because it unfairly targets same-sex marriages. The Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution requires states to recognize a marriage license valid in one state as valid in all states. However, DOMA contradicts this principle by specifically targeting homosexual marriages and perpetuating discrimination.

If a law were passed stating that states are not required to recognize marriages between two blond individuals, there would likely be significant backlash. Similarly, DOMA allows for the nullification of legal marriages between homosexual couples once they leave the state where the marriage took place, creating a burden on that state's government.

Legalizing same-sex marriage in Hawaii could strain the state's resources as it may attract many homosexual couples seeking recognition.The text highlights the importance of equal protection under the law for a minority group, emphasizing that everyone should have the right to marry and pursue their careers, regardless of sexual preference. It compares the discrimination faced by homosexuals to that experienced by interracial couples in the past, noting how laws prohibiting interracial marriage were eventually overturned. The concern is raised about potential violations of the Equal Protection clause in restricting gay marriage based on gender instead of race. In conclusion, allowing gay marriage is seen as essential for upholding constitutional rights and ensuring equal treatment for all individuals, irrespective of their sexual orientation. The criticism is directed towards the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as being unconstitutional and reflective of government homophobia. By discriminating against

a particular group, DOMA is argued to violate the Full Faith and Credit clause in the constitution and fails to provide equal protection to all citizens. Additionally, there is mention of a possible influence of a "gay gene" on sexual orientation while stressing the significance of respecting and recognizing homosexuals as unique individuals.In essence, the text acknowledges Alexis de Tocqueville's viewpoint on the dilemma of achieving equality by either granting or denying rights to all individuals.