"New Jersey senate defeats same-sex marriage bill"

This news article is about how the State Senate of New Jersey rejected a proposal that would have made New Jersey the sixth state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages. The vote ended up being 20 to 14 against the bill that would allow same-sex marriage. One man and the president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, Len Deo, was proud of the senators and said, "We applaud the senators for upholding a time-tested institution: marriage." Deo was proud that the bill was rejected because that meant that the traditional "meaning" of marriage, meaning the union of one man and one woman would remain. He believed that gay marriage would weaken society by redefining one of its main traditions. I've heard that statement multiple times where people believe that gay marriage or allowing gays into the military would weaken society's foundation. But what I wonder, is how do they know for sure that that would happen? They can't see into the future and they will never know the outcome unless they let it happen. Until they allow same-sex marriage, they will never know if it will negatively affect society. If anything, I believe that it would improve society because a lot more people will be happy to have that privilege of being able to get married legally. The article mainly focuses on how the defeat in New Jersey, which has been viewed as one of the nation's most "socially tolerant" states, was a significant setback for gay marriage advocates. Advocates of gay marriage had hope for New Jersey, but were let down when the bill was rejected. Advocates are now hoping to take the case to the Supreme Court, hoping that the bill will pass. Another theme that seems to repeat itself in all of the articles that I've been reading, is how much determination gay activists have to never give up on achieving their rights. In article, it talks about how advocates are disappointed from the rejection of the bill, they claim that, "we aren't done fighting." There is also the theme of equality because the article describes how opponents of the bill are frustrated with the fact that voters don't have a say in whether the bill passes or not and that it's not fair because in 30 other states, voters have gotten the chance to decide. They believe that New Jersey should also have that right. Advocates of the bill, however view the case as more of a civil rights one where the decision should be made by the courts and Legislature only. Either way, gay activists will continue to strive for their rights until they achieve equality.

Kocieniewski, David. "New Jersey senate defeats same-sex marriage bill.(Metropolitan Desk)." The New York Times. (Jan 8, 2010): A18(L). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 10 Feb. 2010 .

"On Gays in the Military, Obama Disappoints"

This article from The St. Petersburg Times, describes how the government hasn't taken action on repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The article first criticizes the Supreme Court and how they only take a small percentage oft he cases submitted to it and refused to hear a case involving the policy. That the government's main interests are military discipline and cohesion. Also how the Obama administration showed support for discharging openly gay troops. This is not surprising to read about because I read in another article how some gay activists are questioning Obama's commitment to repealing the policy and allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. I think people need to keep in mind that the president does have a lot of issues to deal with and discuss, and that if Obama said he was going to repeal the policy, then he will do it in time. I do agree with the fact that's it's been a long time with that policy being enforced and that it definitely should be repealed, but, then again, it does take a while for a law or policy to be repealed because there are always going to be people who disagree. The author of this article also criticizes Obama's actions and says, "Now as president, Obama in not only defending the law's constitutionality but standing by as gay soldiers continue to be thrown out of the military due solely to their sexual orientation." The author believes that Obama is supporting the policy, rather than trying to repeal it. Also that the U.S. needs all the help it can get, meaning all "able-bodied troops," to serve in the very long and ongoing war. And that it shouldn't discriminate against gay and lesbian troops. The author writes, "Then there is the ban's waste of talent and resources, which saps rather than enhances our military readiness." He or she believes that discharging soldiers because they are gay is a waste of perfectly capable, determined soldiers who are willing to fight. Similarly to what I read in another article, the author mentions the fact that the majority of Americans support gays serving openly in the military and that 71% of those who had experience with gay troops in their unit said it had either no impact on their morale or the cohesion of the team. The article then closes with the statement that Obama needs to follow through with his promise to repeal the policy because the troops deserve to be treated as equals in the military. I think this article is different from the other ones that I've read because it criticizes the government's role in the issue. And I think it's something that should be discussed more because, really, it's the government who makes the final decision.

"ON GAYS IN MILITARY, OBAMA DISAPPOINTS.(NATIONAL)." The St. Petersburg Times (St. Petersburg, FL). (June 12, 2009): 12A. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 8 Feb. 2010 .

"Gay Marriage Would Promote Social Stability"

Samuel G. Freedman, the author of this article, discusses how gay marriage would promote social stability. Freedman first recognizes that marriage is a step above in terms of a relationship than just being a couple, meaning that marriage requires commitment and responsibility. And that it would only benefit the country if more couples, gay couples, are able to get married as well. Freedman says, "As imperfectly as we practice it, marriage nonetheless connotes responsibilities and obligations beyond those of the unattached individual or of the couple, whether gay or straight, who simply live together." Freedman believes that marriage brings along the responsibilities and obligations that the couple must have, which is different from a couple who lives together. He believes that there is a difference between marriage and just being a couple. I agree with Freedman's statement because if more couples had that privilege to be able to get married, than there would be more opportunities for more couples to learn and experience responsibility and commitment. I'm not saying that it would be necessarily true for every couple, but at least it would give them the opportunity to act as a true, legally married couple. Freedman later explains that in the many years that people have opposed homosexuality, it never goes away because it is part of human nature. I think that's true because it's almost impossible to change human nature because it's human nature. It's something that humans naturally do. People can't expect that homosexuality will just disappear because it won't. It's like asking a fairly large part of society to give up a characteristic of theirs, something that makes them who they are. If anything, they will only come back stronger and more determined to fight for their rights. When describing those who oppose the movement towards same-sex marriage, Freedman says, "They must realize that their own moral opposition to it can coexist with federal or state statutes permitting it." He's saying that those who oppose gay marriage need to learn that their opposition to it can still exist even if it's legalized. I agree because there is always going to be disagreement in the world, not everyone will agree on one topic because everyone has their own opinions and beliefs. There are already established laws that I'm sure at least a few people don't agree with, so why would it make a difference if gay marriage is legalized? People will disagree anyway because, again, it's human nature. The last thing that I want to mention is Freedman's opinion on gays in the military. He says, "We should have built a monument to the gays and lesbians who had given their lives in the armed forces; we should have honored them for making the ultimate sacrifice of any citizen." He believes that instead of criticizing those who were gay in the military, we should honor them for risking their lives to serve their country. That's the biggest sacrifice anyone could make, and instead of honoring those who do, there are people who are worried about whether or not they're gay.

Freedman, Samuel G. "Gay Marriage Would Promote Social Stability." At Issue: Gay Marriage. Ed. Kate Burns. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 7 Feb. 2010 .

"Gay Marriage Would Harm Society"

In this opinionated article, the author, Ed. Kate Burns, believes that gay marriage would harm society by compromising the "true nature of marriage." She starts off her argument by stating that, "Ultimately, the reason to protect traditional heterosexual marriage is to prevent the alteration of fundamental unwritten laws that organize human society," and that, "Without marriage, society would resort to a social order based on polygamy." Burns believes that the reason of why it is so necessary to protect traditional heterosexual marriage, is to preserve these essential, already understood laws that keep society in order. And that without traditional marriage, society would be organized as a system of polygamy, or the system of having multiple spouses. According Burns, polygamy would corrupt society. What I don't understand is how Burns can come to the conclusion that polygamy, which already exists, would result if gays would be allowed to marry. How does she know that? There are already multiple states that have allowed homosexuals to marry, and has their society suffered? No. In fact, more people are grateful for it, especially the gays and lesbians because they now have that privilege to get married. Burn also explains that allowing gay marriage will compromise the happiness of children because they wouldn't have that support and guidance of a mother and father that is essential to the children being happy. I wonder how "happiness" of a child would be measured because "happy" could mean something different to everyone. I also believe that it's very hard to determine if children of two homosexual parents are happy unless you've had the experience or at least know someone who has. And from what I'm assuming with reading multiple articles about this same author who's so strongly against gay marriage, I'm guessing she hasn't had that experience. Later on in the article, Burns made the statement, "... gay marriage would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults 'desires'." She believes that allowing gay marriage would require all of society to destroy the main purpose of having a family, just to satisfy a few peoples' desires, where the purpose is to maintain stability in society. I believe she is completely wrong in saying that gay marriage would destroy the purpose of having a family just for a few people to be happy. First of all, there are many gay and lesbian people in society, not just a few. And if gay marriage eventually becomes allowed everywhere in the country, then it should be their decision to have a family or not because like I said before, there are multiple definitions of a "happiness" just like there is on what it means to be a "family."

Schulman, Sam. "Gay Marriage Would Harm Society." At Issue: Gay Marriage. Ed. Kate Burns. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 6 Feb. 2010 .

Gays in the Military

Before I had read this article about repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allowing open homosexuality in the military, I knew very little about the legislation of this topic or whether it was still being discussed today. And as I found out, it is. According to this article, the debate on whether or not homosexuals should be able to serve in the military and be open about their sexuality is going to be brought to House and Senate hearings early this fall. The article describes one veteran's story. Victor Fehrenback, a dedicated Iraq War veteran who has served in over 80 combat missions, faces the possibility of being discharged because of his homosexuality. He was accused of rape to another man in his own town and successfully won his case, but in doing so, he had to reveal that he was gay. The military found out and accused him of violating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Daniel Choi, involved in the Army National Guard, had an important role in the army as an Arabic language specialist. He, too, faces being discharged from the army because he revealed that he was gay, which violated the still-in-tact "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. In my opinion, it's not right for such dedicated and noteworthy veterans to be discharged because of their sexual orientation. Even though I don't support the war that is going on right now, I strongly admire the soldiers that fight for their country, and if they want to serve in the war, they shouldn't be denied simply because they are homosexual. A poll was taken and revealed that about seven in 10 Americans favor allowing gays to openly serve in the military, which was a 26% increase since the 1993, when the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was created. Even President Obama supports lifting the ban of homosexuals not being able to serve openly in the military, although some gay activists are questioning his commitment to repealing the ban. Supporters of lifting the ban claim that the public opinion has changed drastically since the ban was created, which proves to be true according to the polls. Supporters of the ban, however, claimed that, 'Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them." They believe that allowing gay troops to serve would compromise the concentration and unity when fighting on the field. I believe that it's possible for two men or women to become attracted to each other in the military, but I also believe that they would be professional enough to not let it affect their responsibility. People know what they're getting themselves into when they decide to join the military, and I honestly don't believe that it would be an issue for gay and lesbian troops to serve.

Katel, Peter. "Gays in the Military." CQ Researcher 19.32 (2009): 765-788. CQ Researcher. Web. 5 Feb. 2010. .