Thievery can be classified as the taking of something that isn’t yours. This can have a negative connotation yes, but when you really think about it, those from who you stole from stole from someone else and so forth. Nothing is really original in this world. Most like to think of America as the country of democracy; the free county where its inhabitants are within authority to govern their own lives.
They have rights and can exercise these rights freely. Although, not all is perfect: there are flaws within America’s democratic system. But what exactly is a democracy? The principle behind democracy is freedom and equality for all Its citizens. Democracy recognizes the decision of the majority where all of its constituents have an equal vote. So, one can gather, that for change to occur within a democracy the mindset of its constituents much also change. Since America was founded on thievery and our method of obtaining unoriginal ideals is unavoidable, change is also unavoidable.
Our ideals are forever evolving and morphing, typically for the better. In order to change the mindset of a people gradually over time, the sources of their thievery would eave to change to better more modern sources. With this, America’s democratic system could continuously strengthen due to the better informed decisions of its citizens. The power of change lies within the people. But when outsiders kick in on this great nation Of America, what do they see? Surely most would not say equality for all, but then again, the opportunity for pure equality is there within grasp.
This kind of equality is like a far destination that America can reach if she keeps steady in a positive direction. One topic up for continuous debate is that of same sex marriage. Many would argue that little quality is granted to same sex couples within the Ignited States although, many are becoming increasingly tolerable to these forms of relationships. The question ultimately comes down to how far classifies as too far? Is changing the definition of marriage from being between a heterosexual couple to either a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple pushing limits?
Is the acknowledgment of these homosexual relations via civil unions rather than actual marriages enough in a so called democracy founded on complete freedom and equality for all? Homosexuals have been around since the beginning of time. They are nothing new and throughout history they were typically denied the right to be valued with the same social value as heterosexuals much like modern day America. Today, they are granted this acknowledgement to an extent. Serious and Bacchus were Roman soldiers who lived during the fourth century and happened to be male lovers.
Though, it was because of their Chi Russian faith that they were persecuted by the Romans rather than their sexual Orientation. Bacchus Was tortured to death due to the intolerance of the Christian Romans. A more modern example of homosexuality can be seen through Heehaw, a key cultural and political deader of the Zinc community in the late nineteenth century. He, for some period of time, served as a representative of the southwestern Native American nation to Washington, D. C. He was revered as one of the strongest, wisest, and most respected members of his community and happened to be a “breach”, or a man who dressed in woman’s clothing.
Heehaw was considered to be one of the most distinguished spiritual leaders of the nineteenth century who also happened to be married to a man. Another modern female example includes a wealthy Gobo woman named Fawning Lonnie who lived in the nineteenth century as well. She was a productive woman in a community where most of the entrepreneurs were women, which as a result, controlled much of the Gobo tribe’s wealth. She socially overshadowed her less prosperous male husband so she became a homosexual partner to other women. Her nickname “Lonnie” refers to the fact that she had nine wives (Krieger, William N).
These stories are similar enough to modern America to resonate. Most twentieth century Americans consider marriage to be an institution that fundamentally involves different rather than same sex partners. Americans are willing to tolerate same sex legislations and even grant them a type of innocuous sanction: still, few consider them to be “real” marriages. Due to the fact that America is a democracy, its law reflects these cultural outlooks. This cultural and legal agreement which deny the validity of same sex marriages has been in the hot seat now for over two decades.
Since the Stonewall riots Of 1 969, the LAST community has greatly expanded due to many feeling more comfortable as a result of societies increasing tolerance. Many members of this community are in relationships that are recognized under law, just not as a marriages. A rowing number of citizens, both homosexual and heterosexual, are demanding that the states recognize these marriages in the same way that they recognize heterosexual marriages. Nonetheless, even with this mounting support, states are still refusing to recognize same sex marriages and none of the major publicized lawsuits aiming for such recognition have yet succeeded.
The same is true for major legislative efforts in regards to this issue (Krieger, William N). In terms of the pro same sex marriage movement, there are two types of arguments. First, there is the constitutional argument that states that he constitution mandates, or should be interpreted to mandate, the legalization of same sex marriages. This view is solely based off of constitutional rights claims. Secondly, there is the argument of policy which states that same sex marriage should be legalized due to the facts that it is right, wise, and fair.
Both aim to legalize same sex marriage in an effort to avoid discrimination against a class entitled to special protection under the law. These views are deemed on the basis of equality. Recently, more affluent Western nations have been doubling their efforts to accommodate the nonsexual community in relation to marriage benefits. Many European countries are broadening their domestic partnership laws where if at least one of the partners is a national resident the couple will be entitled to virtually all economic and many of the uneconomic benefits of a typical heterosexual marriage.
In the United States our efforts have been baby steps towards the legalization of homosexual marriages rather than dramatic jumps in this direction (Warble, Lynn D). A common enquiry asked by those who are in opposition to same sex marriage asks the question: what inquires the need for gays to marry? They raise the point that aside from property and legal issues, what reasons are homosexuals trying to make in attempting to get married? They can gain these same rights via other legal action where marriage wouldn’t be involved.
Those who oppose homosexual marriage maintain that the only legitimate marriages are those between men and women; but then again, what about those who are not defined as either male or female? When we define marriage in terms of sex exclusively it raises other questions like how we define the sexes. Using this stringent terminology, marriage might be permanently denied to a large quantity of people. Many people argue that marriage is essentially a religious rite. To these people legalizing gay marriage establishes a type of sacrilege and define tie unwarranted imposition of the state into what is a considered a religious matter by many.
This is understandable due to religion’s traditional role in the blessing of marriages. Although this view is rarely argued explicitly, it is still perhaps one of the most important arguments for those in opposition of homosexual marriage. If it weren’t for the impression that marriage is sacred, it would seem unlikely that this debate would be as huge as it is. Many see marriage as the gateway to starting a family under one entity. If marriage only exists for the purpose of having children, then why would a homosexual couple who aren’t able to procreate be given the same status as a fertile straight couple?
On the other hand you have to ask whether all married couples procreate. This answer, especially in modern times is no. How can this argument be rendered valid then (Cline, Austin)? There is the view that marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children which claims that the norms of monogamy and sexual exclusivity encourage the raising of children by their mother and father. Redefining marriage to exclude the norm of heterosexuality makes other marital norms optional and disrupts the reason for marriage policy as a whole (Anderson, Ryan T). Paula Telemetric contends that marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationship”. Through this statement Telemetric is claiming that justice designed for homosexuals depends upon them accepting their differences from conventional culture and the many choices society makes about what they insider to be a socially acceptable. She claims that lesbian and gay marriage would not have an effect on mainstream America’s ideals.
Therefore, those with similar views often claim that these efforts would be useless in ultimately achieving the overall goals of the homosexual community (Foolproof, Nancy D). America is often doted the golden place of opportunity and equality: one of the only nations in the world truly striving toward the ideals of a true democracy. But what constitutes a true democracy? The principle behind democracy is freedom and equality for all its citizens. M. Jacques Alexander argues that citizenship in America is based on the view that homosexual bodies are outside of the bounds of citizenship.
He supports his claim through the fact that current legislation criminals sexualities situated outside the typical heterosexual monogamous family. States have basically made heterosexuality a prerequisite to citizenship and the unspoken norm to membership and national belonging in America. The idea so many possess is that citizenship is merely a legal status, signified by a simple birth certificate or a passport, which is one of the biggest misconceptions within the United States today.
Citizenship is however much more which covers a wide variety of practices, institutions, and ideals. Linda Bosnian suggests that there are four separate yet intertwined parts forming the ideals of citizenship. There is citizenship as the legal recognition by an organized political community; citizenship as the possession of rights in political and social communities; citizenship as the practice of political and social engagement, activity, and organization; and lastly citizenship as an identity comprising of the collective experience that comes with belonging to a community.
It is a fact that thespians law within the United States demands a certain type Of behavior from its constituents. An example of these expected behaviors include the 1887 Dates Severalty Act which granted citizenship to Native American men only when they developed as property-owning heads of households. They granted citizenship only to those who “adopted the habits of civilized life. ” Such stories of citizenship law remind us that a person is bestowed with rights and duties of citizenship only to the extent that he or she is viewed as a member of society.
You can therefore infer that when a certain group or immunity are denied certain rights, that they are not deemed to possess full citizenship. The discriminatory treatment of “incontinence” is often justified as a means to protect the rights of “recognized citizens”. What then does this say about America’s democratic policy when not all sexual orientations are granted the same rights? (Brazened, Amy L). If true democracy were alive and well within our society then surely all true citizens, being those with legal birth certificates and passports, would have equal access to rights and opportunities.
Since this is valid, why then is this not the reality of our nation today? Sadly, this isn’t just true in terms of marital rights, it can be seen across this nation in regards to a wide array of issues. If democracy recognizes the decision of the majority where all of its constituents have an equal vote, than it seems to me the method to amend this issue of inequality lies in the hands of the people. Therefore, one can gather, that for change to occur within this American democracy, the mindset of its constituents much also change.
But how can the mindset of a whole people modify? Like previously stated, America was founded upon thievery, if taking others ideals and incorporating hem into our ones own is deemed American, then why wouldn’t America look upon other nations who have legalized same sex marriage and ask herself why that same equality isn’t granted to her citizens: the citizens of a nation believed to be at the forefront of democratic ideals? Well the fact is that America doesn’t seem to be asking this question.
This, in my opinion, is easily translated into democratic injustice among the American society. As stated earlier, in a true democracy where the majority control the law, it would be as simple as changing the public outlook. But America isn’t yet a rue democracy: there is another factor called the game of politics at play. Currently, there is a steady growth of rising support for equality among homosexuals in terms of the law so why then is policy still not in place mandating that all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, have a right to marriage?
The answer lies entangled in the messy political war between the Democrats and the Republicans where both parties refuse to find a medium. So then, if citizens have control over the matter only to an extent, how can they ensure or promote change in a relatively positive direction? I propose hat naturally over time, as new generations replace the old, change will inevitably occur since typically it is the older generations that tend to be intolerant and conservative.
With these new generations, legislation will become more readily passed in regards to this issue. Now I am not insisting that this will be a quick process. Instead this will slowly evolve over many generations. Legislatures need to focus on little things and build their way up to the bigger issue. Doing this over a period of time will allow for the public to slowly adjust to new societal norms. Political parties need to stop playing Ames and take initiative regardless, and stop worrying about whether or not they will get reelected as a result.
After all, America was founded on the basis of endless opportunity: how is anything supposed to change if no one is progressively trying to move forward?