Gay marriage has been debated as a popular controversial topic from the different perspectives: political context, social

norm and religious belief, in the United States for the several decades. Several conservatives are holding to against the same sex marriage while the liberals are fighting for the equal right and treatment for the gay couples. Some religious politicians are using religious point of view to establish that the homosexuality is a shame. Some may say that it should be separated from the religious point of view since the country was founded on the religious freedom. This issue is melted to the undecided category by the influence of those criteria. It is completely ridiculous for the country like United States that strongly believes in freedom, liberty and individual right. Gay Marriage should be legal According to the civil right, fairness between human beings and equal protection(Stoddard, 738).Thomas B. Stoddard clearly points out that Marriage, the supreme Court declared in 1967, is one of the basic civil rights of man (and, presumably, of women as well) (737). This is a strong argument that the author made. Although the couples who are Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski had the core value of the marriage including respect, the exchanges of vows and rings, and the status of living together, they are not legal to get marriage (737). He keeps driving his argument that gay marriage should be legalized with another relevant point which is equal protection of the law. Gay American adults should have equal right to marry as other traditional couples have. This unequal treatment should be ended by the demanding of gays, the related environment and people who want to be fair (Stoddard, 738).He compares this issue to the miscegenation statutes which is interracial marriage. It had been unconstitutional until 1967. I was finally abolished. If citizens were stuck only on the traditional measures, there was no way to get the right to marry different race (Stoddard, 738). According to new circumstances, government has no right to say in personal

feeling such as love. There are some weakness facts that the author points out. He states that same sex marriage would be antifamily overlook the obvious: Marriage creates families and promotes social stability. His argument of this statement is full with emotional illusion which is not visible. He says that the world is becoming loveless and less people want to have commitment. It can be true, yet most of traditional families are having successful family life. Lisa Schiffren argues that same sax marriage which is incompatible with traditional values of marriage has been so far. The Writer points out that marriage is essentially lifelong compact between men and women committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and the nature of the offspring. as a stronghold of her argument(Schiffren,740).The fundamental value of institution and cultures understanding are devalued by the forces of political appreciation in order to gain power. Majority of Americans believe that the change on the definition of marriage ruin the institution (Schiffren, 740).Some may neglect the point that heterosexual union can bring successfully the responsibility of breeding and raising the generation value. Although these facts depend on the social customs and lure, they are reasonable facts to consider balancing between traditional values and new circumstance. She points out the value of the traditional marriage which is mutual agreement to take as the shared responsibility for the life. Her overall views are not strong enough to accept that the issue of same sex marriage is political error. Since every society need to adapt and learn new things, the value and customs will slightly change. Politics will also follow by the change of culture and old school theory.