Transcript THE FUTURE OF HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS IN AMERICA Jamie Pizzi, Alexandra Sol, Robert Gentile, Diego Villasenor.

THE FUTURE OF HOMOSEXUAL
RIGHTS IN AMERICA
Jamie Pizzi, Alexandra Sol,
Robert Gentile, Diego Villasenor
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


We recommend a moderate policy of compromise
in which the government integrates the
homosexual community into the sociopolitical
environment with equal rights as heterosexual
couples in the form of domestic partnerships.
Because the current situation, particularly in
regards to civil unions and adoption of children,
is unconstitutional towards homosexual couples.
WE PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT
MARRIAGE LAW STATING THAT,
“THERE IS TO BE EQUAL TREATMENT OF
HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES IN THE FORM OF
MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION RIGHTS.”
A BRIEF BACKGROUND




U.S. history supports the claim that homosexuals
have experienced discrimination within American
society.
Americans consider to be one of the largest
movements of the twenty-first century.
The rights of homosexual people in the United States
is an issue that dates back to the commencement of
the civil rights movement
But, some scholars argue the issue began earlier than
1951; nearly two centuries earlier, when president
Thomas Jefferson purposed a law in 1779 mandating
castration for homosexual men and the punishment of
nose cartilage mutilation for women intended to make
them less appealing.
MORE BACKGROUND


A number of New England states recently begun to
display a more liberal approach by legalizing same
sex marriages all preceding the case of Lawrence v.
Texas in 2003, when two men Lawrence and Garner
were found by police engaging in sexual intercourse
in the privacy of their Texas home.
The case has contributed largely to the decisions of
some New England states that have recently legalized
same sex marriages. The Supreme Court ruled the
case unconstitutional saying “sodomy laws in the
United States are unconstitutional” gave certain
states and their political leaders a chance to act upon
what they believe is right according to the
constitution.
WHY DOES THIS ISSUE NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED?
Not allowing homosexual couples to obtain equal
marital rights is in direct violation of the First
Amendment declaration that states, “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment or
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
 The homosexual community has been advocating
and pushing for rights for generations. In a
democratic society, we cannot simply ignore
them.

PRE-EXISTING POLICIES





Efforts began in the early twentieth century when the
Society for Human Rights in Chicago was formed and
began to advocate for homosexual emancipation
(However, it was dissolved a few months later because
some of the society’s members were arrested)
Forty years after the Society for Human Rights was
formed, in 1962, Illinois decriminalized homosexual
acts in private.
In 1973, the APA acknowledged that being
homosexual was not a mental disorder
At the same time, Harvey Milk, the city supervisor of
San Francisco, advocated against governmental
intervention in sexuality
PRE-EXISTING POLICIES
WITHIN THE LAST DECADE





In 1993, President Clinton passed the “Don’t Ask,
Don’t Tell Bill” in which he allowed homosexual men
and women to participate in the military, but to
refrain from any same-sex activity.
In 2010, President Obama voted for the dissolution of
this bill.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont,
Iowa, New Hampshire, DC, New York same-sex
marriage is now legal.
Obama supported a legislation called Respect for
Marriage Act that advocates for equal rights between
homosexual and heterosexual couples
He addressed a Memorandum in which he stated that
homosexual couples and families should be entitled to
adequate care in hospitals
POLICY OPTIONS

Policy A
Not recognizing homosexual couples as equal at
all, thus granting them zero recognition in the
form of marriage, domestic partnership, or
adoption rights. As well as terminating any
current domestic partnerships and halting the
adoption process for homosexual couples
indefinitely.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Keeps American definition of the
“sanctity of marriage” in traditional
standing of being solemnly between a
man and a woman, thus perpetuating this
predominantly revered family structure
within American culture.
Violates 1st amendment right of freedom of
religion and beliefs.
No further work within congress on the
issue, many Americans would agree that
there are more pertinent issues that need
to be taken care of by the government.
It is a form of minority discrimination
because homosexuals commit no crimes or
wrongful acts to be discriminated against
by the law, yet still are.
It will not cause straight married citizens
to feel that their rights are being
undermined by having such a drastic
shift in the definition of marriage adhere
to by the government.
It will cause great unrest from homosexuals
and their supporters who have been
diligently supporting this cause.
Many deserving homosexual couples will
not be able to adopt children, thus causing
them to miss out on a fundamental human
desire and leaving thousands of children
un-adopted leading to further social and
economic problems down the line.
It will cause faith to be lost in democratic
system considering 60% of voter’s nation
wide supported either civil unions (35%) or
marriage (25%) in 2004
POLICY OPTIONS

Policy B
Creating a compromise in the form of federally
recognized domestic partnerships, and allowing
states to decide whether or not homosexual
couples can have the right to adopt children.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Gives homosexual couples the
same rights and benefits as
married straight couples.
Still neglects to recognize these
relationships as completely equal
to straight ones, thus
perpetuating discrimination
Does not impose on church’s
definition of “marriage”,
therefore more likely to settle
well with the opposition.
There would be increased
administration and
communication for all companies
involved, in order to prevent
fraud because domestic
partnership status could be
abused by any two people who
wish to receive the benefits of it.
Promotes diversity by
acknowledging the need for
acceptance of homosexuals in
America to be treated equally.
No official divorce can mean both
a flurry of issues when dividing
up assets etc and create less
stable long-term relationships
because of how comparatively
easy it is to end a domestic
partnership as apposed to a legal
common wealth marriage.
POLICY OPTIONS

Policy C
Granting homosexual couples the full right to
marry and adopt children.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Grants equality to all citizens regardless of
sexual preference or beliefs, which is
properly in line with the First
Amendment.
It could confuse children about gender
roles and expectations of society by
introducing this complicated matter to
them at a young age, which would be
inevitable if homosexual marriage become
legal and more prevalent.
It completely acknowledges these
relationships as equal to straight ones.
It would enrage religious institutions and
go against their historic definition of
marriage as only between a man and
woman.
It Promotes diversity by acknowledging
this at a governmental level.
Some claim that it would cause a slippery
slope within the legality of marriage as
whole, thus eventually making way for
polygamy and other taboo practices to
become legally recognized as well.
Many religions deem homosexuality as a sin all
together, this may create more discrimination
against homosexuals because of the anger felt by
those who do not approve of this being the law of
the land.
It promotes a stable family structure and
less sexual promiscuity amongst
homosexuals because they now have the
option to settle down and start a family.
RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION
We choose the second option of a compromise
between giving full rights and completely
refusing the homosexual community any at all
 This is suggested primarily for the reluctance
and issues that would arise from forcing a private
institution (the church)
 Recognition that the homosexual community is
indeed a minority, a group of other humans who
are being oppressed
 This will allow homosexual couples to enter into
a civil partnership, being given all the same legal
rights, opportunities, and benefits afforded to a
heterosexual couple.
