The Modern Debate about "Same-Sex Marriage"
The topic of marriage is something that was never seriously questioned throughout the ages. It has been assumed that marriage is solely between a man and a woman; but with our ever-progressing society, our understanding of the love associated with the bindings of marriage has also grown. As the world continues to change and broaden its perspectives, love's boundaries have extended to focus not only on love between a man and a woman, but also between two people of the same sex. Despite love's ability to change, much of society is still quite traditional in its views of this new concept. The issue of "same-sex marriage" is one of the front running topics in our world today because not only does it have to do with love, but also entangles itself in legality as well.
The United States is known as a progressive world power, but its views of same-sex marriage have been slow to change. The federal government created the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996, as a way to clarify that marriage is to only be between a man and a woman, yet it preserves the power to the states to create their own laws on same-sex marriages. Many states uphold the federal government's decision, but a few have chosen to move in a more progressive direction. The states of Massachusetts and California passed laws that allow the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, whereas other states have passed laws providing acknowledgement and benefits to civil unions. Such marriages not only bind two people through the ceremony of marriage, but also bind the two parties legally.
The legal aspect of marriage is one of the more difficult factors in the equation. Having marriage defined as being between a man and woman discriminates against same-sex couples, keeping them from receiving the same financial and economic benefits as heterosexual couples. Prior to Massachusetts's 2004 ruling, same-sex couples were not allowed the same financial opportunities as heterosexual married couples. Some may compare this discrimination to the interracial marriage problems of the 1960's whereas others may say that this situation is of complete different proportion. Even though interracial marriage was not gender based, it was still a discrimination against a group of 
people on the basis that they were not considered part of the norm. Current day same-sex couples who wish to marry are denied the opportunity to gain Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, and family leave from their partner. These benefits allow partners to fully share their life with the one they love, and still providing for that person even when they are gone. This argument is the second half of the debate over same-sex marriage that states must decide on before making a change from the heterosexual norms common in the past.
The state of Florida, with possibility of California and Arizona, has proposed a Constitutional Amendment to be put on the voting ballot in the 2008 voting. If this proposition passes, it revokes the marriage right from same-sex couples while rendering void any prior marriages during the time of the state-approved law. In California the same-sex marriage law was passed on May 16, 2008, and almost immediately after the ruling there was a campaign to overrule the decision. After being denied by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the idea of Proposition 8. Not even 6 months after the original ruling, Proposition 8 was being put on the ballot to overrule or support the decision of the California government. Both parties created media advertisements to promote their viewpoints and these ads air during primetime television shows in order to receive optimum coverage.
This debate about same-sex marriage is still young and evolving. As times change so do laws, and with the rulings in California and Massachusetts other states may look to them for possible encouragement if things continue positively. There will always be two sides to the issue so expect continuing conflict.