Offically

Offically

Same-Sex Marriage

In the editorial “Same-Sex Marriage is Both a Constitutional and Human Right,” Sally Driscoll and Alexander Stingl argued that same-sex marriage should be legalized in the United States. This article is intended for an audience that opposes same-sex marriage becoming legal. It could also be geared towards anyone interested in the background, logic, or governmental part of same-sex relationships. The authors described that same-sex marriage has no impact on other relationships, and soon like women’s rights and inter-racial marriage will most likely be allowed in the United States. It also provides a definition for marriage, along with the financial and other benefits that marriage has; same-sex marriage would still fit in the definition and the benefits could still apply. Driscoll and Stingl make a persuasive argument in many ways by using Aristotle’s concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos, but their argument could be questioned.

Same sex marriage has been banned and has been illegal in many countries, while others did not have any laws, either for or against such kind of marriages. For example, in 1533, king Henry VIII of England made a law that punished sex between two men by hanging. The law was in force till 1861 before being abolished. Queer couples in the US, Canada and Europe began applying for marriage licenses simply because the constitution only stated that marriage was between two people who intended to marry. For example, a county clerk allowed two men to get married on January 7th, 1975 in Phoenix, Arizona, after checking and finding out that there was no prohibition of that kind of marriage. On March 26th, the same year, five homosexual couples were given certificates as there were no specific laws that prohibited same sex marriages. Since then, many documented associations have applied for same sex...