Supreme Court

The debates on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of gay marriage are still going and various ethical, moral, religious and social issues are up front agenda. Indeed this debate is crucial because it particularly hinges on the rights and freedom of one segment of the society. A. The social benefits of Gay marriage In his internet article entitled “Argument for Gay Marriage: Moral and Social Arguments for Gay Marriage” Austin cline cited that studies constantly demonstrate that those people who marry tend to be financially psychologically, emotionally and even medically better off.

According to Cline, these studies show that contrary to the common notion that marriage is not universally an improvement, it generally is (Cline par. 2). Perhaps, many would agree that the purpose of marriage is to establish a legal and social relationship that would make it easier for people to live their lives emotionally, economically and psychologically. According to Cline, most of the rights and privileges of marriage are a means for each spouse to support each other.

Thus, it could not be denied that married couples are better off than unmarried couples (Cline, par. 3). Denying or banning gay marriage would therefore deprive this segment of the society of their right to improve their lives through the benefits of marriage as cited. B. Conservative opinion on same-sex marriage In an interview with known conservative on the issue of same sex marriage, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, he emphasized he stands by his previous statements opposing same sex marriage.

Schwarzenegger adhered to the notion that “only a man and a woman is valid or recognize in California. However, the California Supreme Court voted in favor of same sex marriages. The court declared that the ban on same sex marriages is unconstitutional. Conservative opinion on same sex marriage draws their arguments from the issue of sodomy which they held as a crime against nature. While I acknowledge that each of the fifty states of the United States, had laws against sodomy, the United States Supreme court declared it as part of the right of the individual

II. Conclusion Apparently, all the negative views held against same-sex marriage can just considered as merely part of the essence of democracy where the individual are guaranteed of the free exercise of his or her rights as long as this exercise of rights does not harm themselves in the process and those of others. Definitely, no one can be harm by the legalization of same sex marriage instead; it will help this segment of our society established themselves emotionally, psychologically, and financially.

Their union should not be viewed as morally or socially evil but as mere individual human being trying to live a normal life and survived the difficulties of life that lie ahead through their mutual relationship. Work Cited Allen, Anita L. & Regan, Milton C. Debating Democracy’s Discontent USA: Oxford University Press, 1998. Cline, Austin Arguments for Gay Marriage: Moral and Social Arguments for Gay Marriage Abouit. com, 2009

http://atheism. about. com/od/gaymarriage/p/ProGayMarriage. htm Schroeder, John Ross Redefining Morality: Why a Torrent of Trouble Threatens to Engulf Us The Good News Magazine Vol. 13 March-April 2008 Issue 555 Technecenter Dr. , Milford, OH45150 Schwarzenegger on Proposition 8 ‘We will Undo that’ An Interview with Schwarzenegger (Yule tube) November 10, 2008. http://www. worldnetdaily. com/index. php? fa=PAGE. view&pageId=80688