ips involving one man and one woman or that same-sex couples should also be entitled to “marriage.” State legislatures have gone both ways in this debate: either enacting “defense of marriage” laws and constitutional provisions or, going the opposite direction, adopting laws allowing same sex marriage (NCSL, November, 2012). David Grindstaff’s Queering marriage: An Ideographic Interrogation of Heteronormative Subjectivity “maps the contemporary scene of heteronormative power and resistance through two rhetorical performances of gay male identity” using his and other theorists’ ideas. I totally agree with him when he said: “The recent controversy surrounding same-sex marriage marks the institution, practice, and concept of marriage as a significant site of power and resistance within American culture (p. 258)”.
In my opinion, human rights apply to everybody regardless of gender, race, and preferences. Grindaff said that “…the decision to sanction same-sex marriage would extend legal and economic advantages to same-sex couples, which appears to carry the promise of social equality on a broader scale” (p. 258). I totally agree with him. There are advantages that married couples enjoy and when same-sex marriage is approved, it will be unfair for the couple not to enjoy such advantages. As Pastor Allen has shared:
Though my partner and I had a commitment ceremony in 2003, and obtained a marriage license this past July in Washington D.C., we learned that marriage is more than our religious convictions and our commitment, but also about laws that will protect us. Marriage equality is not about religious rights, but the right to equal benefits. At the end of 2003, the U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 1,138 federal provisions where marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights and privileges.
These include next-of-kin hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;