Annotated+Bibilography

qlbtq, Social Sciences. "Defense of Marriage ACT". Febuary 23, 2011.

The qlbtq is a encylopedia for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community and anything that goes a long with their community. The article talking about the "Defense of Marriafe Act" is the bill back in the early 90's that was prohibiting any marriage or civil union of same sex couples to be recgonized by the Federal Government. I noticed the article talks a lot about how politicians have flip flopped back and forth on the issue about the "protection of marriage". This article points out how the Democratic party was not passing bills that would help protect homosexuals in the work place, and with marriage. "But marriage is more than just a bundle of rights. It is a unique institution seen by many as the building block of society. The United States Supreme Court has said that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival" and that the "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness" (//Loving v. Virginia// [1967])." ([]). This statement helps justify that this article will help my paper with many court dates, and facts about what politically is going on with gay marriage and civil rights.

**Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violates Church-State Separation,** Allen Snyder, Opednews.com. March 10, 2011.

"Allen Snyder is an instructor of Philosophy and Ethics. He can be reached at asnyder111@hotmail.com  This article is copyright by Allen Snyder and originally published by [|www.opednews.com] but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached." (http://www.opednews.com/snyder031404_banning_same_Sex_marriage.htm)

My paper is mainly about how banning gay marriage is a major violation of church and state because the church is pushing a religious view on to America. Many statistics show that there are enough people that are for gay marriage, and gay rights that it is not a popular consensus that everyone disapproves. The essay dives into how it is discrimination against any one who is homosexual being put into the constitution and interjects religion into the Constitution, which is supposed to be unconstitutional. The paper points out very good points regarding the first amendment about how the "ceremony" of marriage is strictly religious, but being recognized by the state as a civil union, or obtaining a marriage license has nothing to do with religion. He makes very valuable points that can be useful to my research paper in the end. This is different then my last paper because it interjects about how church and state is strictly prohibited, and how most of it is nonsense and not how political leaders use it as a way to woo voters in like the last article.

The Politics of Gay and Lesbian Rights; Expanding the Scope of the Conflict. Donald P. Haider-Markle, Kenneth J. Meier, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

I want to focus on the political machine that politicians use gay rights as a platform to gain voters, for many of any party jump back and forth about the issue. Many of us are aware the politicians enjoy to play the morality card on the voting citizens of the USA. This essay gets into this problem that I feel very strongly about. The study puts together these issues into political science getting rights, the church, and how it is geared to interest groups. The issue of any religion should not be discussed in politics because there nothing on a federal level that can be done, it is a state issue if homosexuals are allowed to be married or not. The essay though is a little difficult to read, but this is expected for the level of writing it is. I can understand it clearly for it states their purpose and organization is very well done.

Religion and Public Opinion about Same-Sex Marriagen, Laura R. Olson, Clemson University, Wendy Cadge, Bowdoin College and Harvard University, James T. Harrison, Bowdoin College. (http://www.wendycadge.com/assets/OlsonCadgeHarrison2006.pdf)

Finding an oppositional argument towards gay marriage was much more difficult then previously conceived when I took on this research project. Many essays and journals talk about how religion is only a role played in the political machine and is nothing more then violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. This article talks about how America as a whole does not like the idea of same sex marriage using surveys and morals that are a majority here in the United States. They talk about how gay rights became a major concern in certain time frames, and then became very conservative in other time frames depending on demographics, and other cultural shifts. They do have survey data to show how certain demographics feel about these rights. They're are trying to make the point what is most pleasing, and comfortable for the masses. It seems there are justifying that it would make a majority of people hostile, and or uncomfortable if gays were allowed to marry like a man and women do in many areas. This of course would make these places unsafe, and or, unfit for gay couples to raise children and or live comfortable.

What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality, Rev. Mel White, ( http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian)

Bible scripture is something that is taken out of context, or something religious institutions use as their reasoning behind why they're allowed to grant the permission of homosexuals and lesbians into their congregations. A great quote within this article is "the devil can recite scripture too". Mel White has his doctrine degree in Religious Studies found on the website in his bio. The text is very simple to read, and the organization is very easy to follow. Bible scripture was something that was unavoidable from the get-go with a paper talking about the separation of church and state. Why is it okay for churches to discriminate while everyone else gets in trouble for it? This article talks about popular bible scriptures that defend these discriminating churches, and breaks them down and interpenetrates them as they are, like the supreme court does for the Constitution. The main things he points out are the out dated sex laws, female rights, and other laws in the bible we do not follow today. It also shows how there is actually nothing that opposes homosexuals outright in the bible. This is valuable to me because I have never really practiced any Catholic or Christian religion before. This article is also very unbiased for Mel White is also a preacher himself. He repeats over and over how god is the only one who judges us in the end, and anyone can practice these religions for we're not the ones to judge.