Marriage Has Been Viewed As The Basis For Family

Marriage has traditionally been viewed as the basis for family. The union is a legal contract between two mutually consenting people; there is a man who provides food, shelter and protection and the wife maintains the home and has the children. With the changing of the societal landscape, the views of what constitutes a family is constantly changing. There are people who live together and create a family without the legal protection of marriage, there are single people of both genders who choose to raise a family alone, and there are people of the same sex who choose to build and raise a family together. The common thread is the commitment to raising the family, regardless of the partner, or lack thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment, which was

Constitution mandates that states must recognize the various legislative acts, public records and judicial decisions of other states in the Nation (Legal Dictionary, 2012). If one state recognizes a marriage or divorce between two people then it is to be recognized uniformly by other states. The clause fails to provide the individual states to recognize items that are supported within their individual constitutions. If the states are able to recognize legal judgments such as divorce and child support orders than they would have to recognize the marriages in total.

Protection of conjugal marriage

Historically, marriage has been between a man and a woman and the union served as a means to procreate and build towns, countries, armies, etc. It can be argued that if the FMA were not implemented then the growth rate could decline. If people of the same gender were freely allowed to marry and attain the same rights that heterosexual couples gain by the union, that the birth rate could potentially decline over time. If procreation were to diminish then the future generations could suffer growth. While adoption is a feasible alternative, the rate of increase could potentially not be as steady. The institution of marriage and the creation of families also clearly define the lines of family lineage, inheritance, and by not keeping a clear distinction, this would be

To say someone is not equal because of the person they love and cherish of the same sex is to deny them of those inalienable rights. Our founding fathers have bestowed in our history that all men, women, and children are equal. To say same-sex couples may not marry because it is morally wrong is similar to stating that black people should still be enslaved; which is unacceptable in society today. By not moving forward with legislation that makes the relationship between two people, regardless of gender, legally recognized is going in the opposite direction of the growth and change our nation has encountered. Difficult choices must be faced to make things right for all people. If Rosa Parks did not make the difficult decision to step to the front of the bus, the racial inequalities of the nation’s recent-past could very well still be prevalent. It is the right thing to do to recognize all people as equal and having value-added contributions and to deny the basic right to marry legally is unconscionable. To effectively fight having the amendment voted upon, sound arguments with justification need to be made to Congress to ensure it is not voted