According to Marshall, citizens should be allowed to engage in the marriage of the same sex to enjoy absolute equality that is provided in the constitution. They should have the freedom to decide; whether and whom they should marry, how they should express sexual intimacy, and how to develop a family that comprises an individual’s liberty and rights in general. Chief Justice Marshall describes marriage as ca social institution that do not regard procreation as an adult intimacy and a means of establishing a family. She further argues that couples raising children together whom they may be assisted to get is the symbol for marriage that initiates a total commitment of the partners to each other. Child bearing should not be considered a marriage seal.
Marshall’s definition of marriage is not adequate as marriage has been a highly valued institution in the society, and extending it to same-sex marriage will devastate the historical value of marriage.
The proposal to abolish marriage is not the way forward to solving the marriage disputes that are arising regarding gay marriage. Marriage over a long period has been a valued institution in the society that has been used to solve various disputes. Therefore, abolishing it will do away with significant cultural customs in the society. Furthermore, privatizing marriage entirely will lead to disorder in families, as there will be no framework of solving the disputes that may arise among the gay marriage making it irrelevant. The proposal is not appealing because if marriage is abolished and gay marriage is allowed to dominate, there will be no normal future generations. This will be acting against the ethics and the values of the society.
Abolishing marriage will not solve all the current social disputes in marriage. This may shift the conflicts from the government and society to an individual level. With the privatization of marriage, disputes among the marriage partners are likely to increase, as there will be no basis of solving them. They will lack the regulations according to which their conflicts will be solved. Therefore, marriage should be highly valued, respected, and its role in the society be appreciated by all the marriage parties.
Michael Perry and Morrison & Sullivan
In most cases, the Pope and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops requires the Catholic Church followers to not only refer to the teachings of the Magisterium but also take its position in regard to deciding on significant moral issues or in making political choices. This is regarding the highly educated policy makers and citizens in form of believers that they do not have the required competencies to make decisions for themselves. Perry in his argument asserts that it is important for the Catholic followers to work out and take their positions regarding moral issues that they may encounter at a given time. They should make their political choices without the intervention of the Magisterium, and remain “faithful” as opposed to the Pope and Bishops.
For instance, in circumstances where the citizens struggle with a certain moral issue that requires an immediate solution, they should take their own decisions because starting conversations with the teachings does not mean that the agreement has been terminated.
When people disagree about the morality of same-sex marriage, they are differing on the description of the well-being of the human beings. The Catholic Roman Church followers, for instance, are cemented to the perception that same-sex marriage is unmoral through the teachings that are attained from the Bible. They have the notion that working against the Magisterium they could have been “unfaithful” to the Gospel. Therefore, the experiences that people undergo, and the way they base their arguments contributes to the disagreement that is present on the morality of the same sex marriage. The differences arise due to different interpretations of the Magisterium teachings. Some teachings are termed to be controversial to the human well-being lifestyles. This also contributes to the existence of differing ideologies in the moral issues like same-sex marriage.
According to Andrew Sullivan and David Morrison in their discussion on homosexuality in the Catholic culture context, Sullivan asserts that there is no scripture in the Bible that contains substantial content that is against homosexuality. He further argues that homosexuality should not be highly considered immoral as the Catholic Church describes it. Sullivan concludes by urging the Catholic Church to change their way of viewing homosexuality. Sullivan challenges the Catholic Church’s take on same-sex marriage. On the other hand, Morrison is trying to argue in favor of the Catholic culture. Morrison urges the people to avoid being attracted to the people of the same sex and rather promote chastity upon the same-sex marriage. He condemns the same sex marriage practice and terms it immoral according to the ethics of the society.