Critique of "Against Gay Marriage"
In his essay "Against Gay Marriage," William Bennett, a great spokesman for conservatives and former Secretary of education under President Reagan, maintains his conservative stance that allowing same-sex couples to marry would have a harmful and lasting effect on our society's intrinsic values and, in his view, would stretch the "fragile" institution of marriage beyond recognition (409). Bennett, as the title indicates, presents a powerful argument "Against Gay Marriage." He argues that allowing gay marriage would change the meaning of marriage, the ideal of marriage as being an "honorable estate," and would have a large role in molding sexuality (409). One does not have to agree with Bennett to appreciate the strength and honesty of his mind. Still, although he raises thoughtful objections to same-sex marriage, his claims overall read more like an outline, lacking specifics and expert opinions, referring to one organized, careful study, and committing a number of logical fallacies that muddy and diminish the effectiveness of his argument.
Throughout his essay, Bennett makes many underlying assumptions about same sex couples and the legalization of homosexual marriage. From the beginning, Bennett states that even entertaining such a debate "would be pointless," were it not for the "confused time" we find ourselves in (409). Bennett does concede, however, that arguments made by homosexual advocates such as Andrew Sullivan are "intelligent" ones, and even "conservative," and "politically shrewd" (409), when touching on the idea that allowing gay marriage would actually promote healthy long term relationships. Sullivan does an excellent job of arguing his point that legalization of gay marriage would in fact, help promote healthy relationships and monogamous tendencies, which in his essay he states that the legalization of gay marriage would in fact also.Citation styles:
Critque of "Against Gay Marriage". (2014, November 05). In WriteWork.com. Retrieved 13:22, February 26, 2017, from http://www.writework.com/essay/critque-against-gay-marriage
WriteWork contributors. "Critque of "Against Gay Marriage"" WriteWork.com. WriteWork.com, 05 November, 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.
WriteWork contributors, "Critque of "Against Gay Marriage"," WriteWork.com, http://www.writework.com/essay/critque-against-gay-marriage (accessed February 26, 2017)
Pages: Word count: Rewriting Possibility: % ( )
I. Title of the Case
Stipulation Against Marriage
Claudine de Castro Zialcita vs. Philippine Airlines (PAL)
II. View Point
Claudine de Castro Zialcita complained against Philippine Airlines (PAL) for dismissing her from her job by reason of her contracting marriage. Upon dismissing her the respondent of Philippine Airlines (PAL) invoked their policy which states that flight attendant applicants must be single and will be automatically separated from employment in the event that they subsequently get married. The complainant argued that the policy is a discrimination against married women, she mentioned about her co-workers that are married too and are not dismissed from their job by reason that they lied about their relationship status because of fear of losing their job. She also mentioned that the policy of PAL is illegal and unreasonable because of discrimination against women by having a marriage ban for women but not men. III. Time Context
Philippine Airlines (PAL) began life with a noble mission: to serve as a partner in nation-building. With this in mind, PAL took to the skies on 15 March 1941, using a Beech Model 18 aircraft amid the specter of a global war. It became Asia’s first airline. Philippine Airlines (PAL) has been the dominant air carrier in the Philippines since its creation in 1941. Operating both internationally and within the 7,100 islands that make up the country, PAL has been something of a curiosity and scandal among the world’s major airlines. Case No. RO4-3-3398-76 dated February 20, 1977 stated that complainant Claudine de Castro Zialcita, an international flight stewardess of PAL, was discharged last September 1975 from the service on account of her marriage. In separating Zialcita, PAL invoked its policy which stated that flight attendants must be single, and shall be automatically separated from employment in the event they subsequently get married. They claimed that this policy was in accordance with Article 132 of the Labor Code. On the other hand, Zialcita questioned her termination on account of her marriage, invoking Article 136 of the same law. IV. Statement of the Problem
The dicriminatory and unconstitutional policy of not accepting flight attendant applicants by reason of being married and firing flight attendants by reason of getting married. What are the effect to this kind of policy not only to flight attendants but also other jobs that has discrimination on other ways. Minor
The dismissed of an International flight stewardess from her job by reason of her contracting marriage. To know what are the answers from the complainant questioned regarding her termination from the company in regards to the law. V. Objectives
The aim of this study is to know whether the termination of the services of complainant on account of marriage is legal. To analyze futher if the company’s policies has the right attitude towards their employees. Other objective in this case is to know the relationship or connections between the complainant, the company involved, and the law under this situation. We will be able to know the meaning of the law itself (Article 132 and 136) and the impact to each parties. And finally, we will be able to know which party has the right reasoning that is rational under the law. VI. SWOT Analysis
Strengths| Weaknesses| Opportunities| Threats|
Reputation of the company through providing policies for achieving the goals| Employer –employee relationship because of the conditions that was organized by the company| New diversion of work which offers applicants without limitations| Other companies with better policies that has positive impact to employees| Management is committed to employee development and training| Less opportunity for employees because of discrimination or stipulate for getting married| Knowledge about rights of employee thats under the law| Changing in goverment policies or law| Creating policies for strong customer base| Policy and procedure needs to be updated | There are job sharing opportunities with other organizations| The demand for employees in the field exceeds the supply of potential workers|
VII. Alternative Courses of Action Major
1) To establish standards that will ensure the safety and health of women employees and in appropriate cases shall by regulation require employers to determine appropriate minimum standards for termination in special occupations, such as those of flight attendants. 2) To consider the labor law. The incompatibility of the company’s policy or regulation with the codal provision of law. 3) To have an equal treatment to everyone. Without demands and limitations for greater opportunity. Minor
1) To reinstate the dismissed stewardess.
2) To change the company’s policy. Philippine Airline’s policy for hiring only unmarried stewardess. 3) Prohibited stipulations in employment contract
Although Article 132 enjoins the Secretary of Labor to establish standards that will ensure the safety and health of women employees and in appropriate cases shall by regulation require employers determine appropriate minimum standards for termination in special occupations, such as those of flight attendants, it is logical to presume that, in the absence of said standards or regulations whick are yet to be established, the policy of PAL against marriage is patently illegal. Article 136 is not intended to apply only to women employed in ordinary occupations, or it should have categorically expressed so. The sweeping intendment of the law, be it on special or ordinary occupations, is reflected in the whole text and supported by Article 135 that speaks of non-discrimination on the employment of women. Minor
Philippine Airline’s policy of hiring only unmarried stewardess is not only illegal but probably unprofitable because the ‘sexual security’ of marriage makes some women more efficient and beautiful. Claudine De Castro Zialcita should be reinstate as stewardess because PAL arguments that a married flight stewardess risks becoming pregnant and upsetting flight schedules was not a valid reason. According to Article 136, Labor Code, It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated. IX. Plan of Action
1) Ensure that the policy and regulations are enforced by law. One of the main attributes of effective regulation is the power to enforce compliance with sector policy, laws and regulatory decisions, including dispute resolution decisions. This is an efficient mechanism for dealing with complaints of non-compliance with rules and regulations. 2) Working in an environment which is free from discrimination. Organization/Company is committed to the promotion of equal opportunities for all staff, and its policy on equal opportunities reflects this. Treating all individuals fairly – without bias or prejudice and free from stereotyping. This applies to all recruitment, promotion and career development decisions. 3) Company’s own policy should ensure that policy guidelines become part of our normal working practices. It should promote a positive equal opportunities environment and applies on a timely manner.
* Bora Raton News – June 1, 1976
* http://himpapawid.com/airlines/baldoz-resolves-fasap-pal-case/html * Labor Law Review 2011Case No. RO4-3-3398-76
* Philippine Airlines, Inc.
Is this the perfect essay for you?
Save time and order Stipulation Against Marriage
essay editing for only $12.9 per page.
Top grades and quality guaranteed!
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTERThe most fiery reaction from 2016 presidential contenders against Friday’s Supreme Court decision imposing same-sex marriage nationwide came from Mike Huckabee, who vowed resistance akin to the American Revolution against the “judicial tyranny” of this “imperial Court”:
The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions, and they have had many. The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny.
The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment.
Whatever your thoughts on Huckabee’s prognosis for resistance, his diagnosis of the process is indisputably correct. He’s exactly right about how gay marriage has been imposed by judicial fiat against the will of the people. Public opinion polls showing how many people in various demographics approve of the concept are interesting, but such things are a prelude to proper action in a constitutional republic – it is still necessary to marshal public opinion into votes, which can go very differently than pollsters predict.
Don’t worry, you’ll hear that argument made very emphatically every time the will of the majority, as expressed through polls, is cited as the reason to rewrite or erase an unpopular law like ObamaCare. Sometimes executive and judical fiat to impose poll-tested “popular” ideas is super-awesome; other times it is absolutely forbidden, and the will of the majority doesn’t count for squat. Sometimes a margin-of-error poll preference is portrayed as a landslide victory; other times, 70% majorities are considered meaningless.
It’s also hard to argue with Huckabee’s description of the Supreme Court decision as deeply flawed; Chief Justice John Roberts, yesterday’s liberal super-hero for saving ObamaCare, feels the same way. Of course, the Roberts of Friday also said the Supreme Court isn’t supposed to be a legislature, while the Roberts of Thursday was a black-robed, unelected health care Super-Legislator-for-Life. Friday Roberts mused that it doesn’t matter whether gay marriage is a good idea; Thursday Roberts said the only thing that mattered about ObamaCare, more than its text or even the U.S. Constitution itself, is whether its authors thought it was a good idea.
He’s like summer weather: if you don’t like the current John Roberts, don’t worry, a completely different one will be along shortly. If you ever wondered what the phrase “tyranny is whimsical” meant, you now have a splendid example. Tyranny means the absence of legal principle or consistency – the absolute truth you are required to accept without dissent can change from day to day, depending on the needs of the ruling Party and its instruments.
In the boldfaced line, Huckabee touches upon an important concept that lies at the heart of why the political Left pushed so hard for gay marriage, and why so many people who are not in the slightest bigoted or hateful have argued against it. It’s actually something both sides of the political spectrum believe is important, for completely opposite reasons: natural law.
Broadly speaking, the Left sees natural law as an enemy to be defeated, a primitive force to be overcome through political will, while the Right believes it should be respected and guide the shape of government, especially at the inescapable federal level.
It’s not necessary to be religious to understand natural law, although Huckabee quoted a famous expression framing it in such terms: “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” It’s the “nature” part you need to accept, specifically human nature, along with a higher authority than temporal government. You would think reverence for Nature would come easily to the modern liberal, given the fetish for environmentalism, but in fact liberal “environmentalism” is premised on the absolute supremacy of human will and politics over nature – the Earth is so fragile that if you don’t obey the correct political leaders, you’ll kill it.
To put it simply, there are things the vast majority human beings are naturally inclined to do, and to avoid. There are natural behaviors which are conducive to healthy individual life, and to a healthy society. An advanced and tolerant society makes plenty of room for those who reject these norms, provided they aren’t hurting anyone else. However, the burden of governance should follow the contours of natural law as much as possible. Compelling the majority of people to act against natural law requires an enormous amount of compulsive force, while it doesn’t take much force to encourage them to do what people are naturally inclined to do.
Now, that might sound simple enough in theory, but centuries of heavy philosophical artillery have been exchanged between parties warring over what constitutes natural law, and whether human nature can (and should) be changed by coercive force. Don’t force normal people to do weird stuff is the fortune-cookie version of the idea, but its ramifications fill endless volumes of scholarly debate.
Don’t force harmlessly weird people to act normal is also an important ideal. Plenty of oppression has been unleashed by those who forget that part.
Marriage between men and women comports with natural law, and it has little to do with anyone’s religious or ideological opinion about certain sexual practices. The reason is that male-female sexual relationships are essential to the very survival of the human race, at least for the time being. There’s no getting around it. There’s no way to elevate any other form of sexual partnership to the same level of sheer biological importance. That doesn’t mean the other kinds are no good, any more than the essential importance of water renders other beverages without value.
There’s more to this than child birth, of course. There’s child rearing, and here again, there is simply no logical substitute for the male-female partnership. Again, that doesn’t mean other kinds are bad or should be stamped out or denigrated. But it is the natural and healthy tendency of most men and women to seek each other out and engage in reproductive behavior (often disabling the reproductive conclusion with modern technology, of course.) It is naturally healthy for society that large numbers of men and women have children and remain in stable, monogamous relationships to raise them. The whole enterprise of society disintegrates if a huge number of men and women do not behave in this way. The exact percentage of the population that needs to marry and raise children for societal health is a matter of debate, but it’s pretty high, and in some communities, the threshold is obviously not being met, with disastrous results.
That’s where so much of the Supreme Court’s gay-marriage decision unravels: it is obviously untrue, to the point of absolute lunacy, to say the government has no interest in promoting traditional marriage. Whether this can be done while also legalizing gay marriage is highly debatable, because it’s hard to see what instruments society has left to encourage traditional marriage if it can no longer even be spoken of as a unique institution.
Maybe natural law will save us there. A common argument of same-sex marriage advocates is that it won’t harm traditional marriage, because after all, there aren’t that many same-sex couples. We’re talking about a very small percentage of the population. There’s a lot of controversy now, in the early days of same-sex marriage, but give it a little time, and it will subside to the vanishing point, leaving us with – what? Five marriages out of a hundred conducted with two brides or two grooms? Just relax and forget about it.
The problem with that prediction should already have been made clear by the bitter skirmishes in the final years of the marriage war: bakers destroyed for refusing to bake cakes, pizzeria owners ruined for hypothetically refusing to cater weddings, religious institutions coming under assault for refusing to participate. It might be possible for the contours of healthy society to return, if gay marriage advocates collect their victory, show respect for the sincere believes of those who disagree, and let everyone get on with their lives. That’s not going to happen.
And one of the reasons brings us back to the fundamental disagreement about natural law between Left and Right. It takes enormous compulsive force to make people accept a legal regime contrary to human nature, and that’s a feature to the Left, not a bug. There is vast power to be harvested from interfering in private lives, assaulting private institutions, attacking and marginalizing ordinary people, and passing laws that compel them to live in a way contrary to their instinctive understanding of what society requires. Gay marriage is hardly the first time this has been done, but considering the importance of both religion and the family unit to independence, it might prove to be one of the most consequential.
Yes, religion is important to independence.
The State is a jealous God that tolerates no other; belief in an authority higher than the State sparks resistance. Religious communities are communities, and their members tend to have direct contact with social and moral issues, such as charity, that the State wants to take from them. Religion inspires respect for things which are very important to the health of a proud and independent people, including marriage. All of those benefits can be obtained without attending a church or temple, and of course religious communities can go wrong, but looking at a population of millions, it’s clear that religious teachings support individual dignity and independence. That is why all of the great Western revolutionary movements, most definitely including the civil rights movement in America, have invoked religion.
So, are we going to destroy religious liberty in the United States to support same-sex marriage? At this point, with the Supreme Court’s decision in hand, that’s entirely up to same-sex marriage supporters. They will decide whether this leads to social harmony or continued strife, whether the immense surge of compulsive force deployed in this decision – nine robed justices, and really one swing justice when you get down to it, redefining the institution of marriage for millions – will abate now that the deed is done, or snowball into even greater exertions of force. I know which way the opportunistic social engineers of the Left want it to go. Time for sincere, well-meaning gay marriage supporters to prove their mettle by throwing the engineers off this train, because it has reached the destination they wanted, and they swore they never intended to take it any further.Read More Stories About: FROM THE HOMEPAGE
Sheriff David Clarke: ‘I Sense Pride in Our Nation I Have Found Lacking for the Last Eight Years’
CPAC Straw Poll Finds Overwhelming Support for Donald Trump
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt at CPAC: After 8 Years We’ll Have Better Air, Better Water
Fordham Prof: White Women Choose Patriarchy Over Interests, Democracy ‘Set Up to Protect White Women’
Trump Escalates War on Media, Will Not Attend White House Correspondents Dinner
Exclusive—Regnery: Anti-Trump Democrats’ Best Allies Are Senate Republicans
Michelle Bernard on Trump Presidency: ‘You Can’t Help But Think’ Slavery Is Coming Back
Dem Rep Meeks: Trump Is Using Similar Tactics as Putin, Hugo Chavez Against the Press
Unity in Division: Tom Perez Named DNC Chair, Selects Keith Ellison as Deputy Chair
Brooks: The GOP ‘Has Become an Ethnic Nationalist Party’
Van Jones at University of Chicago: Safe Spaces Are a ‘Terrible Idea’
GWB Daughter Barbara Bush to Keynote Planned Parenthood Fundraiser
German Police Shoot Fleeing Driver Who Mowed Down Three
Poll: Public Opposes Progressives’ Federal Transgender Rule by 2 to 1
VIDEO: Locals Express Outrage During Pledge of Allegiance, Opening Prayer at Sen. Bill Cassidy’s Town Hall
Leslie Jones Rips Trump: ‘We Got a Pig in Office’
Jodie Foster at Anti-Trump Rally: ‘This Is Our Time to Resist’
George Clooney Trashes Trump at César Film Awards
JTA — In his Christmas address to Vatican officials, Pope Benedict XVI reportedly praised an essay by France’s chief rabbi on the negative effects of gay marriage.
According to Reuters, the pope called the essay by Rabbi Gilles Bernheim “profoundly moving” during the pope’s speech in the Clementine Hall of the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace on Friday.
In an essay published in October,“Gay Marriage, Parenthood and Adoption: What We Often Forget To Say,” Bernheim argues that plans to legalize gay marriage are being made for “the exclusive profit of a tiny minority” and are often supported because of political correctness.
Equal rights groups “will use gay marriage as a Trojan horse” in a wider campaign to “deny sexual identity and erase sexual differences” and “undermine the heterosexual fundamentals of our society,” Bernheim also wrote.
Last month, France’s Socialist government unveiled a draft law that would allow gay marriage. That same month Spain’s highest court upheld a gay marriage law.