Click here for more current events lesson plans matched to national standards.

Extended Lesson:
Constitutional Amendments and gay marriage

Online NewsHour:
Special Report
The Battle Over Same Sex Marriage

Update: Judge Blocks Last-Minute Bid to Stop Mass. Gay Marriages. 05.13.04

Update: Massachusetts Won't Marry Out-of-State Couples without States' Permission. 04.30.04

A report on two mayors who began issuing same-sex marriage licenses. 03.03.04

Browse the NewsHour's coverage of law.

NewsHour Extra:

The Legal Debate over Same-Sex Marriage. 08.13.03

Student editorial:
Gay Marriage Should be Allowed

Outside Links:
Massachusetts State Government

Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court

Minnechaug Regional High School's Newspaper: Smoke Signal

Dignity USA

MarriageDebate.com

The U.S. Constitution

Alliance for Marriage

National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce

Extra is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Massachusetts high school student Brian Muse argues that allowing same-sex marriages diminishes the sanctity of marriage.

The idea of banning same-sex marriages is not something that has arisen in response to the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in several states but is the reiteration of a longstanding tradition that is lawfully "between one man and one woman." Marriage has been a concept for more than five millennia, and the abolishing of its core values and rituals undermines the culture of the world in general.

Civil unions are available in the state of Vermont for same-sex couples who wish to become legally joined. The left would argue that certain privileges in a marriage aren't available in a civil union. However, Vermont's civil union law states, "Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage." Financial benefits given to a married couple of Vermont are paralleled with the financial benefits of a couple that obtains a civil union in Vermont.

The law also states, "A party to a civil union shall be included in any definition or use of the terms 'spouse,' 'family,' 'immediate family,' 'dependent,' 'next of kin,' and other terms that denote the spousal relationship, as those terms are used throughout the law," recognizing a gay couple with a civil union with the same connotations of a heterosexual marriage. Instead of destroying the tradition of marriage, all states should acknowledge these unions to extend the privileges given by Vermont to the entire country.

Legalizing gay marriage because two people of the same sex are "in love" is no different than allowing polygamy on the basis that three people can be "in love." As a society, we can agree that incest is harmful, and therefore refuse members of the same family the privilege of marriage. We can also conclude that polygamy is harmful, and therefore refuse Muslims and Mormons the ability to marry more than one person.

There are reasons why restrictions are put on marriages. The matter is not that gay couples aren't being recognized as "in love," but there are great social implications that reside in marriage, a line needs to be drawn.

Marriage is the act of two people conjoining as one to create life and a family. Broadening the definition opens doors that should not be opened. Marriage is not the legal joining of two people for financial purposes and recognition. It holds religious connotations that coincide with many other customs and ethics the foundation of our country was built upon.

The majority of the United States is opposed to same-sex marriages. According to ABC News, 55 percent of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriages while only 41 percent are in favor. Social issues that affect such a great population of the country should be decided democratically -- let the people or the legislature decide instead of a high council of wise men.

With impending legal marriage in Massachusetts, gay marriage will be imposed on a national level by a majority decision from the highest court of only a single state. This seems wrong for a country where so many oppose gay marriage.

Thirty-eight states have passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union between "one man and one woman." In 1996, Congress passed DOMA on the national level (using the democratic process). In order to obtain a marriage license, the couple must be heterosexual, as stated by the law.

The left would argue that it is the right of any two people, gay or straight, to get married. Marriage, however, is a licensed affair and is transitively not a right but a privilege. Medical licenses and driving licenses are not distributed on the basis that it is the right of the recipient to have one. It comes down to a matter of criteria that has been set in place for specific reasons; marriage pertaining to natural order and social limitations.

Civil rights are an important cause for the sanctity of human rights as a whole, but it is being overly justified in this scenario. All the tools for civil unions are surfacing, but legalizing gay marriage while nullifying the world's oldest tradition without vote, without negotiation, without debate, and without true purpose is inane. It is a digression from tradition and culture to grey areas that are dangerously defined.

The entire situation is teetering on the brink of bedlam, where the core values of civilization as we know it are at stake. The only way to repeal this danger is by amending the Constitution to prevent gay marriage.

--Junior Brian Muse is the computer editor of his school newspaper, "The Smoke Signal."

Debating The News
My Story
Editorial Page
Poetry

Click here to find out how your essay or poem could appear on NewsHour Extra.