The following sample essay on “Civil Rights”: discussion on civil rights of LGBT community and comparison of Christopher Wolfe and Sheila Jackson Lee.
The number of Americans considered being lesbians or gay is a controversial issue. Estimates on this issue can range between one and ten percent of the whole United States population. In this regard, Americans with affectionate feelings towards people of the same sex have warranted significant debate whether the constitution should be amended to hinder gay marriage.
Christopher Wolfe is a professor at the political science department in the Marquette University.
Wolfe is in support of constitution amendment to bar same sex marriages in the United States. In this regard, Wolfe states that an amendment of the constitution would only allow the marital union of a man and a woman. He bases his argument on the understanding that marriage should be considered a social institution. Even though marriage is a personal relationship, Wolfe considers it more than that.
Wolfe maintains that marriage is the most ordinary means of bringing offspring into the world, who are in turn taught how to assume their roles as social citizens. If marriage were only a personal relationship, Wolfe argues that the state would not have an essential reason recognizing marriage or giving it any concern. Furthermore, scientists agree that the best context of raising a child should involve both the child’s biological parents. Marriage should not be thought to be just about personal intimacy or personal relationship. Marriage involves an institution with particular intrinsic features that have to be honored.
Sheila Jackson Lee serves as a US representative and stands against amending the constitution to prevent gay marriages maintaining that it is unnecessary and improper. In this regard, she argues that lesbian and gay Americans are human as well as citizens that pay taxes and play crucial roles in protecting the state as police officers, firefighters, and service in the military. Furthermore, Sheila asserts that by denying gay and lesbian couples their right to engage in marriage involves federal deprivation of legal rights such as inheritance, pensions, and health insurance.
Under the current US law, states Sheila, marriage is the state’s decision to make. Since marriage has a historical linkage with property rights, it therefore amounts to a local issue. The State is responsible for the issuing marriage licenses, determination of the tax bracket of the couples as well as the authorization of divorce. Moreover, Sheila argues that such an amendment is unnecessary with the US states government giving matters that are more pressing on its plate to deal with. In her view, she feels that the amendment is a waste of funds and that America is still looking to cultivate peace in Iraq.
When arguments by the two authors are compared, it is notable that Wolfe bases his arguments partly if not wholly on religious values. In his view, marriage should be considered sacred and only be conducted between a man and a woman. Furthermore, he feels that children need to have male and female parental figures rather than gay or lesbian parents. On the other hand, Sheila can be perceived to base her argument on matters of civil affairs. In this regard, she maintains that lesbians and gays have rights that need to be addressed. Furthermore, engaging in this matter, according to her would be a waste of time and resources since other urgent matters are yet to be tackled.
In my opinion, I am in agreement with Sheila Jackson Lee. Regardless of being gay or a lesbian, these are human beings too that fulfill their respective duties as United States citizens in their respective fields. The State, therefore, has a duty towards ensuring that their civil rights have to be violated. However, I would suggest that certain measures be put in place in order to ensure proper growth and development of children adopted by gay or lesbian couples. I feel that both Wolfe and Sheila should have endeavored to offer several solutions to possible issues that might arise if their respective stands on the matter should go through.