Domestic Partners
Develop a national policy that addresses the rights of domestic partners. Should the national government pass legislation on a federal marriage amendment? Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children? Should the Congress pass a law that gives domestic partners the same legal status as married couples?
Radical: Ashwin
The most prominent reason why the United States is the most prosperous
nation on Earth is because our government strives to ensure equality to each of its
constituents in every aspect of life. There is no basis for why domestic partnership
should be an exception. On a very basic level, there is a clear distinction between
marriage sanctioned by the government and marriage sanctioned by a church. That’s why
a religious ceremony alone does not make a domestic partnership official. Therefore,
any talk about how the Bible declares that marriage is between a man and a woman should
be discarded. I am not proposing that the age old traditions of the Church be altered.
However, legally, there should be no distinction at all between heterosexual and
homosexual marriage. The partnership should be called “marriage.” Anything short of
that would still contribute to the stigmatization and overall negative discourse
surrounding homosexuals. Only by dissolving derogatory sentiments, will homosexuals
be completely incorporated into society, thus witnessing the equality the United States
is famed for. Constitutionally, the present state of curtailing marital rights is against
the establishment clause, which says that our government can in no way establish a
religious basis for laws. Further restrictions our government imposes on domestic
partnerships forbid alternative matrimonial practices, such as polygamy. Again, this
religion-driven policy is a direct violation of the free exercise clause of the United
States constitution, which indicates that individuals should be able to exercise their
own religion as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. The current laws
regarding both homosexual marriage and polygamy are unconstitutional at the point where
they give more credence to Christianity than other religions just because it has been
conventional to do so. At the end of the day, you must ponder the frightening similarities
between the current state of affairs and the conditions of interracial marriage in before
it was legalized in 1967. The arguments white supremacists used to justify for interracial
marriage laws—that they were contrary to God’s will or somehow unnatural—are echoed today
by the most conservative opponents of same-sex marriage, which begs the question: What
are the true intentions of curtailing homosexual rights?
Liberal: Sid
Equality. The United States of America has always prided itself this word. Today, our constitution is faced by a grave threat: a Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage.
Politicians must not give in to such bigotry. Some people feel that gay marriage is immoral, while others do not, but I believe that people, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the same basic rights. Amendments such as the Federal Marriage Amendment have been passed in states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Utah. Due to these laws, couples have been denied basic rights to claim property, be with their partner in medical emergencies, among other things. I feel that these laws are going against the most fundamental doctrines that fuel our American society.
The liberal platform will strive to achieve equal rights for all people, in all situations. Realistically, legislation at the federal level legalizing gay marriage is not possible. Any candidate who promises such a thing knows that there is not enough support in the senate or the House of Representatives to achieve such a goal.
Thus, it is up to the Supreme Court to rule on such issues and always side for equality and justice. State laws that discriminate against homosexuals should be struck down, but this responsibility should be left up to the courts. The legislative branch of the government should only pass laws enough so that people are not discriminated against when filing taxes and other such activities regulated by the federal government. The constitution should not be altered in any way, for I believe amendments are not needed to show how great America is, how accepting America is, and to prove that we will stand for equality now and forever. Join The Movement
Conservative: Viraj
The prevalence and acceptance of homophobia in popular culture necessitates an increased emphasis on gay rights. A system of civil unions could afford gays the same legal status that married couples have while still maintaining the sanctity of marriage. Religious denominations can each make their own determination as to whether or not to recognize this legal bond, but civil unions would be consummated in courthouses. Domestic partners would not be allowed to adopt children, but would be permitted to maintain custody of children from before the union. A plethora of statistics support the assertion that homosexuals are more likely to engage in pedophilic acts, including The Archives of Sexual Behavior, which notes that “2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men; in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles.” Preventing domestic partners from adopting would thus serve as a precautionary measure and would help to significantly reduce the number of sex crimes committed against children.
Ultra-Con: Petie
The Ultraconservative stance on domestic partnership and gay marriages is
simple. Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman for the purpose of having
children and raising a family. Homosexuals are incapable of having children and
procreating, and therefore should not be allowed to marry. Domestic partners should
also not be given any special allowances or rights-domestic partnerships would then
just become a legalized form of gay marriage.
Peter Scobel, the Ultraconservative candidate, fully supports the
institution of Federal Marriage Protection Amendment, which would guarantee the fact
that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. This amendment has been proposed
in the past, its rejection has been a grave mistake by the legislature. They have
allowed America to be overrun by homosexuals- Peter Scobel promises that this will
change if he is elected. Such an amendment would protect the sanctity of marriage.
It would also prevent domestic partnerships and civil unions by homosexuals; this
should also prevent the adoption of children by homosexual couples, which would be
justified. How is a child going to be able to be raised properly if he or she has two
father figures and no mother figure or two mother figures and no father figure? As for
the issue of giving domestic partners the same status as married couples, there should
be no question that this is wrong. It would be a step backward for America.