argumentative essay for gay marriage

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

An Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage: An Interview with Rick Santorum

The debate over same-sex marriage in the United States is a contentious one, and advocates on both sides continue to work hard to make their voices heard. To explore the case against gay marriage, the Pew Forum has turned to Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and now a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Sen. Santorum is also the author of the 2005 book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good , in which he makes the case for promoting families anchored by a married mother and father.

A counterargument explaining the case for same-sex marriage is made by Jonathan Rauch, a senior writer at The National Journal .

Featuring: Rick Santorum , Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center; Former U.S. Senator

Interviewer: David Masci , Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

In this Q&A: Why oppose gay marriage?

The “go-slow” approach

Child welfare

Christian values

Question & Answer

Gay rights advocates and others say that gay and lesbian people want to get married for the same reasons that straight people do – they want to be in caring, stable relationships, they want to build a life and even start a family with someone else. Why shouldn’t they be able to do this?

See, I think that’s the foundational flaw with this whole debate. The law is as it has been for 200-plus years, and so the burden is on them to make the persuasive case as to why they should be married, not just for their benefit but for what the impact is on society and marriage as a whole, and on children.

I would argue that the gay community has not made the argument. They may have made the argument as to why they want it, but they have not made any arguments as to why this is beneficial for society. They have not made any argument – convincing or otherwise, that I’m aware of – as to what the impact would be on heterosexual marriages and what the impact would be on children.

They have no studies. They have no information whatsoever about what it would do to the moral ecology of the country, what it would do to religious liberty, what it would do to the mental and physical health of children – nothing. They’ve made no case. Basically the case they’ve made is, “We want what you want, and therefore you should give it to us.”

So you’re saying that advocates of same-sex marriage are not seeing the big picture?

Yes. I have a book that was written a few years ago called It Takes a Family . In that book I have a chapter on moral ecology, and I explain that if you go to the National Archives, you will come to a section that has, as far as the eye can see, rows and rows and rows of environmental impact statements, because we have laws in this country that say before you go out and you put in a bridge across a creek, you have to go out and see whether what you’re doing is disturbing the landscape there.

Yet when it comes to something that I happen to believe is actually more important than a particular plot of land – the entire moral ecology of our country, who we are as a people, what we stand for, what we teach our children, what our values and ethics are – people argue that we can build the equivalent of a strip mall without even thinking about what those consequences are.

Some people in favor of gay marriage have argued for a “go-slow” approach, acknowledging that we’re in largely unknown territory and that a majority of Americans are not yet comfortable with same-sex marriage. Does that attitude allay any of your fears?

No. They want the convenient accelerator of the courts to put this in play, and then they want the judicious temperament of the American democratic system to govern it. I don’t think you can have your cake and eat it too. Same-sex marriage advocates are not going to state legislatures, except in some cases for civil unions. They are using the courts.

If the courts are going to be your accelerator, then get ready for a ride. And if the courts ultimately say, “Marriage must be allowed between anybody and anybody,” the gay rights advocates are not going to say, “Well, you’ve gone too far.” No, I think the go-slow argument is there to make us feel better, but it doesn’t hold water.

Another argument made by gay rights advocates is that with or without marriage, gay families are already a widespread reality. They point out that we already have gay couples living together, some with children. And they ask: Isn’t it better that they be legally married to each other, if for no other reason than for the benefit and the welfare of the children?

The answer is no – because of the consequences to society as a whole. And again, those are consequences that they choose to ignore. What society should be about is encouraging what’s best for children. What’s best for children, we know, is a mother and a father who are the parents of that child, raising that child in a stable, married relationship, and we should have laws that encourage that, that support that.

What you’re talking about with same-sex marriage is completely deconstructing marriage and taking away a privilege that is given to two people, a man and a woman who are married, who have a child or adopt a child. We know it’s best for children and for society that men and women get married. We know it’s healthier. We know it’s better for men. We know it’s better for women. We know it’s better for communities.

What we don’t know is what happens with other options. And once you get away from the model of “what we know is best” and you get into the other options, from my perspective, there’s no stopping it. And also from my perspective, you devalue what you want to value, which is a man and woman in marriage with a child or children. And when you devalue that, you get less of it. When you get less of it, society as a whole suffers.

Do you feel confident that if same-sex marriage became the norm in our society that we would get less traditional marriage?

The answer is yes, because marriage then becomes, to some degree, meaningless. I mean, if anybody can get married for any reason, then it loses its special place. And, you know, it’s already lost its special place, in many respects, because of divorce. The institution of marriage is already under assault. So why should we do more to discredit it and harm it?

Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center has written extensively about this, about what the impact is in countries that have adopted same-sex marriage. We have, in fact, seen a decline in the number of marriages, a delay in people getting married, more children being born out of wedlock and higher rates of divorce. None of those things are good for society. None of those things are good for children.

But can you lay these changes at the feet of same-sex marriage?

Yes, I think you can lay them at its feet. Kurtz notes that the marriage rate in the Netherlands was always actually one of the lowest in the EU. And once same-sex marriage was put in place, it broke below the line.

As a person who has positioned himself as a defender of Christian values, why is gay marriage particularly opposed to those values?

Well, the laws in this country are built upon a certain worldview, and it is the Judeo-Christian worldview. And that worldview has been expressed in our laws on marriage for 200-plus years. Up until 25 years ago, we would never have sat here and done this interview. It would have been beyond the pale. And so it is clearly a dramatic departure from the Judeo-Christian ethic that is reflected in our laws that say marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.

When you look ahead, do you feel optimistic that your side in this debate will ultimately prevail?

What I’ve noticed about this debate is that fewer and fewer people are stepping up and taking the position I’m taking because they see the consequences of doing so. I don’t think there is an issue that is a tougher issue for people to stand up against in American culture today than this one, both from the standpoint of the mainstream media and the popular culture condemning you for your – they can use all sorts of words to describe you – intolerant, bigot, homophobe, hater. The other side takes it personally. And so it makes it very difficult for folks to stand up and argue public policy when the other side views it as a personal, direct assault on them. So it’s very, very hard for me to be optimistic when we have a battle of ideas and one side is universally hammered for being intolerant bigots and the other side is enlightened and tolerant – which I think is false, but it is the pervasive attitude.

We know that the American public doesn’t approve of same-sex marriage, but they are uncomfortable about it because, again, the public perception is if you feel that way, you’re a bigot or a hater. And if the culture continues to send that message, if our educational system sends that message, which it does, you know, eventually the culture will change and people’s opinions will change.

The push back is what most people know: that mothers and fathers bring something unique. I mean, I have six children. I know that two mothers would not be able to give to my children what a mother and a father can give to my children. For instance, my daughter’s relationship with men is, in many respects, formed by her relationship with me. There are volumes of evidence showing that if little girls don’t have a father, it impacts their ability as adults to bond with men in healthy relationships.

What do we know, really, about children raised by same-sex couples? We’re into, in many respects, an unknown territory. There is already a difficult environment for children in America today, at least from the traditional Judeo-Christian perspective. So I think this is a fight worth fighting, even if it’s not a popular fight.

This transcript has been edited for clarity, spelling and grammar.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Religion & Social Values
• Same-Sex Marriage

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in Europe

Public opinion on abortion, 8 in 10 americans say religion is losing influence in public life, how people around the world view same-sex marriage, the pope is concerned about climate change. how do u.s. catholics feel about it, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021

Example 1: Gay Marriages Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right. To have experts write for you a quality paper on same sex marriage, seek help from a trusted academic writing service where you can buy research proposals online with ease and one you can be sure of getting the best possible assistance available

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Paragraph 1:

Same-sex marriage provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care.

• It gives them the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples.
• It makes it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Paragraph 2:

Same sex marriage allows two people in love to happily live together.

• Homosexuals deserve to be in love just like heterosexuals.
• The definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes.

Perhaps you may be interested in learning about research proposals on human trafficking .

Paragraph 3:

Same sex marriage gives homosexual couples the right to start families.

• Gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children.
• A family should ideally have parents and children.
• It is not necessary that the parents be a male and female.  

Paragraph 4:

Same sex marriage does not harm the institution of marriage and is potentially more stable.

• Legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not  negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage.
• Heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages.

Paragraph 5:

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and mother for a balanced upbringing.

• They hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence on children.
• They forget that that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places.

Paragraph 6:

Opponents may also argue that same-sex marriages reduce sanctity of marriage.

• To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony.
• Unfortunately, such arguments treat marriage as a man-wife union only.
• They fail to recognize that there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.
• Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages.
• It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them to actualize their love in matrimony.
• It enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children.
• It is only fair that all governments consider legalizing same sex marriages.

Read on the best motivational speech ideas .

Argumentative Essay on Same Sex Marriage

For many years now, same-sex marriage has been a controversial topic. While some countries have legalized the practice, others still consider it not right and treat it as illegal. Same-sex marriage is defined as a marriage or union between two people of the same sex, such as a man and a man. Some countries have broadened their perspective on this issue even though for many years, it has never been legally acknowledged, with some societies even considering it a taboo. The United Kingdom, Spain, France, Argentina, the Netherlands, and recently the United States are some of the countries that have legalized it (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Irrespective of any arguments, same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right.

First, same-sex marriage, if recognized by society, provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care. If people live together in a homosexual relationship without being legally married, they do not enjoy the security to protect what they have worked for and saved together. In case one of them dies, the surviving partner would have no right over the property under the deceased’s name even if they both funded its acquisition (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Legalizing same-sex unions would cushion homosexual partners from such unfortunate situations. They would have the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples. Legalization would also make it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Same sex marriage also allows two people in love to become one in a matrimonial union and live happily together. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is thus denying them the right to be in love just like heterosexuals do. Moreover, the definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes. According to Gerstmann (2017), marriage is a formally or legally recognized union between two people in a personal relationship. As per this definition, people should be allowed to marry once they are in love with each other irrespective of their genders. Reducing marriage to a union between a man and woman is thus a direct infringement into the rights of homosexuals.

Additionally, gay marriages give homosexual couples the right to start families. Just like heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children. Essentially, a family should ideally have parents and children and it is not necessary that the parents be a male and female. Same sex partners can easily adopt and bring up children if their marriage is legalized and recognized by the society in which they live (Gerstmann, 2017). As one would concur, even some heterosexual couples are not able to sire their own children and resort to adopting one or even more. This is a right that should be extended to same sex couples too given that they may not be able to give birth on their own.

Further, same sex marriage does no harm whatsoever to the institution of marriage, and is potentially more stable. According to a 2009 study, legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not in any way negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage (Langbein & Yost, 2009). This makes it quite uncalled for to argue against or prohibit gay marriages. In yet another study, only 1.1 percent of legally married gay couples end their relationships as compared to the 2 percent annual divorce rate among opposite-sex couples (Badgett & Herman, 2011). This implies that heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages. It could then be argued that gay marriages are more stable than traditional man-woman marriages. The two types of marriages should thus be given equal chance because neither affects the other negatively. They also have more or less equal chances of succeeding if legally recognized and accepted.

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and a mother. They may say that for children to have a good balance in their upbringing, they should be influenced by a father and a mother in their developmental years. Such arguments hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence over the lives of children and that this is less fulfilling (Badgett, 2009). However, the arguments fail to recognize that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places. At school, the children get to be cared for and mentored by both male and female teachers who more or less serve almost the same role as parents.

Those who are opposed to same sex unions may also argue that such marriages reduce sanctity of marriage. To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony that is held very sacred by people. They contend that there is need to do everything possible to preserve marriage because as an institution, it has been degrading slowly over time. Their concern is that traditional marriages are being devalued by same sex marriages which are swaying people away from being married and instead choosing to live with same sex partners (Nagle, 2010). It is clear here that such arguments treat marriage as a man-woman union only and are thus not cognizant of the true meaning of marriage. Moreover, they fail to recognize that traditions and religions should not be used against same sex couples because there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.

Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages. It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them the well-deserved opportunity of actualizing their love in matrimony. In addition, it enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children. Arguments made against this form of marriage, such as that it undermines traditional marriages, are based on opinions and not facts. Moreover, it is not important for a child to have a father and a mother because there are other places in which they actively interact with people of different sexes. As such, it is only fair that all governments consider legalizing gay marriages.

Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011).  Patterns of relationship recognition by same-sex couples in the United States [PDF]. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Marriage-Dissolution-FINAL.pdf .

Badgett, M. V. (2009). When gay people get married: what happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage . New York, NY: NYU Press.

Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Langbein, L., & Yost, M. A. (2009). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities.  Social Science Quarterly , 90(2), 292-308.

Nagle, J. (2010). Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017). Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Explore a persuasive essay about strengthening community handled by our tutors following the prompt provided.

Example 2: Sample Essay Outline on Same Sex Marriages

Thesis:  Same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

Pros of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex couples are better at parenting.

• Children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health.
• Children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers perform better academically and socially.

Same sex marriage reduces divorce rates.

• The divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. Higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited.
• Divorce is not good for family cohesion.

Same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing.

• Bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil.
• After some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced increased anxiety disorders.

Cons of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages.

• It could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling.
• They might want to become homosexuals upon growing up.

For a holistic development, a child should have both mother and father.

• Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child.
• A child needs to learn how to relate with both male and female genders right from when they are born.

Other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions.

• People who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged.
• They might start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals for instance.

Why Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

Paragraph 7:

Marriage is a fundamental human right.

• All individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right.
• Denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

Paragraph 8:

Marriage is a concept based on love.

• It is inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and woman.
• Marriage is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding.

Paragraph 9:

opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

• However, this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular.
• It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition.

Same sex marriage should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex.

Same Sex Marriage Essay Example

The idea of same sex marriage is one of the topics that have been widely debated in the United States of America. It has often been met with strong opposition since the majority of the country’s citizens are Christians and Christianity views the idea as evil. On the other hand, those who believe it is right and should be legalized have provided a number of arguments to support it, including that it is a fundamental human right. This debate is still ongoing even after a Supreme Court ruling legalized this type of marriage. However, this debate is unnecessary because same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

It has been proven through studies that same sex couples are better at parenting. A University of Melbourne 2014 study indicated that compared to children raised by both mother and father, children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health. Similarly, the journal  Pediatrics  published a study in 2010 stating that children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers performed better academically and socially (Gerstmann, 2017). The children also experienced fewer social problems.

Same sex marriages also reduce divorce rates. According to Gerstmann (2017), the divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. This was as per the analysis of the before and after divorce statistics. Likewise, higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited. Generally, divorce is not good for family cohesion especially in terms of caring for children. Children need to grow up under the care of both parents hence the need for their parents to stay together.

In addition, same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing. This is because bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil. A study report released in 2010 showed that after some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced a 248% rise in generalized anxiety disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 37% rise in mood disorders (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). In this respect, allowing such marriages would make them feel normal and accepted by society.

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages and the longstanding marriage culture in society. Perhaps, it could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling and enjoyable than opposite-sex relationships. As a result, they might want to become homosexuals upon growing up. This would mean that standardized marriages between opposite sexes face a bleak future (Nagle, 2010). Such a trend might threaten to throw the human race to extinction because there would be no procreation in future generations.

Same sex unions also fall short because for a holistic development, a child should have both a mother and a father. Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child. The two major genders in the world are male and female and a child needs to learn how to relate with both of them right from when they are born (Nagle, 2010). A father teaches them how to live alongside males while a mother teaches them how to do the same with females.

Further, other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions. If the marriages are accepted worldwide, people who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). They might even start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals, for instance. This possibility would water down and deinstitutionalize the whole concept of consummation and marriage. This would further diminish the existence of heterosexual marriages as people would continue to find less and less importance in them.

Same sex unions should be legal because marriage is a fundamental human right. It has been stated by the United States Supreme Court fourteen times since 1888 that all individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). In making these judgments, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Due Process Clause protects as one of the liberties the freedom to make personal choice in matters of marriage. The Court has maintained that this free choice is important as it allows free men to pursue happiness in an orderly manner. Thus, denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

People should also be legally allowed to get into same sex unions since marriage is a concept based on love. It is traditionally inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The working definition of marriage should be that it is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). Making it an exclusively man-woman affair trashes the essence of love in romantic relationships. If a man loves a fellow man, they should be allowed to marry just like a man and a woman in love may do.

As already alluded to, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Based on this traditional definition of marriage, they contend that gay and lesbian couples should not marry. However, as noted by Carpenter (2005), this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular and is thus seriously flawed and fallacious. It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition. That marriage only happens when one man and one woman come together in a matrimony is a constricted view of the institution of marriage. Moreover, there are no reasons accompanying the definition showing that it is the right one or should be the only one (Carpenter, 2005). Therefore, it should be expanded to include same-sex couples. The lack of reasons to support it makes it defenseless thus weak.

Same sex marriages should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex or not. Just like love can sprout between a man and a woman, so can it between a man and a fellow man or a woman and a fellow woman. There is absolutely no need to subject gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to unnecessary psychological torture by illegalizing same sex marriage.

Carpenter, D. (2005). Bad arguments against gay marriage.  Florida Coastal Law Review , VII , 181-220.

Gerstmann, E. (2017).  Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hertz, F., & Doskow, E. (2016).  Making it legal: a guide to same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships & civil unions . Berkeley, CA: Nolo.

Nagle, J. (2010).  Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017).  Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Example 3: Same Sex Marriage Essay

Same Sex Marriage Essay- Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. Discuss how the idea of gay marriage has changed over the last decade and show the progression of the movement.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Essay Outline

Introduction 

Thesis:  Gay marriage was regarded as an abomination in the early years, but in recent times the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage is gradually changing.

In 1965, 70% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage.

• They cited its harmfulness to the American life.
• Prevalence of AIDS among gay people further increased this opposition.

Social gay movements contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Gay movements increased the exposure of members of the society to gay marriage while showing their sufferings.
• Through social movements, the society saw the need for equality and fair treatment of gay persons.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Political bodies and politicians pushed for equality of gay people in efforts to garner political mileage.
• The influence of politicians changed the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

The incidence of gay people, particularly in the United States has contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Increase in the number of gay persons pushed people into accepting gay marriage.
• The media contributed in gathering compassion from members of the society by evidencing the sufferings of gay people.

The judiciary upheld the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

• In 2014, 42 court rulings were made in favor of gay marriage.
• There are more than 30 states today with policies in support of same-sex marriage.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage.

• The Supreme Court ruling in 1987 that stopped governments from restricting the freedom of marriage worked in favor of same-sex marriage.

Paragraph 7: 

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them.

• Restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality.
• An adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for the fulfillment of love by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage has changed. Social gay movements and increased incidence of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate gay marriages. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Sample Essay

In the early years, gay marriage was an abomination and received criticism from many members of society. The principal reason as to why many people in society were objected to gay marriage was that it went against religious and societal values and teachings (Decoo, 2014). However, over the past three decades, the perception of society towards the practice has changed. The degree of its social tolerance and acceptance has gradually improved. In the 2000s, numerous social and political lobby groups pushed for a change in insolences towards gay marriage (Decoo, 2014). Though these lobby groups have tried to advocate for the rights of gay people, their principal focus was to change people’s attitudes towards homosexuality.

According to a study conducted in the year 1965 investigating the attitudes of Americans towards gay marriage, seventy percent of the respondents were opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage citing its harmfulness to the American life. Most Americans felt that the practice went against the social and moral values of the American society. In the years between 1975 and 1977, the number of Americans who were not objected to gay marriage increased (Decoo, 2014). However, this number decreased in the years of 1980, when the prevalence of AIDS among gay people hit alarming levels. In the years that followed, the attitudes of the American society towards gay marriage rapidly changed.

The rise of gay social movements has contributed significantly to a change in attitude of the society towards gay marriage. In the early years, people were not exposed to issues of same-sex marriage, but the gay social movements focused on increasing the exposure of gay marriage, while advocating for their equal treatment (Keleher & Smith, 2018). These movements were able to reveal the injustices and unfair treatment that gays were exposed to, and how such unfair treatment tarnishes the image of the society (Keleher & Smith, 2018). The movements persuaded the society to embark on ways of addressing injustices meted out on gay people. Through highlighting these injustices, members of the society acknowledged the need for reforms to bring about impartiality and non-discrimination in marriage.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to changing the attitude of the society towards the practice. As a matter of fact, one of the strategies that gay social movements employed in their advocacy for gay rights were political maneuvering (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The lobby groups approached aspiring politicians, who would advocate for equal rights of gays to garner political mileage. With time, politicians would use the subject to attack their competitors who were opposed to the idea of same sex marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). This increased political support for gay marriage influenced members of the society into changing their attitude towards the same.

The ever increasing number of gays, particularly in the United States, has contributed to a change in the attitude of the world society towards gay marriage. As the number of gays increased in the U.S., it became hard for members of the society to continue opposing this form of marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). Many families had at least one or more of their family members who would turn out to be gay. The perception of gay people by such families would therefore change upon learning that their loved ones were also gay (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The media also played a significant role in gathering compassion from the members of the society by portraying the injustices that gay people experienced (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The society would as a result be compelled to sympathize with gays and lesbians and thus change their stance on same-sex marriage.

Further, the judiciary has also contributed to the change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage. There were states in the U.S. that initially illegalized same sex marriages, prompting gay people to file discrimination lawsuits (Coontz, 2014). Reports indicate that in the year 2014, there were more than 42 court rulings that ruled in favor of same-sex couples (Coontz, 2014). Some critics of same-sex marriage termed these rulings as judicial activism. They argued that the judiciary was frustrating the will of the American society, which was opposed to same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Following these rulings and the increased advocacy for equality and fair treatment of gay people, some states implemented policies is support of same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Today, the entire United States treats the practice as legal, as was determined by the Supreme Court back in 2015.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage has also contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage. In the early years, there were states, especially in the United States, that opposed interracial marriages, so that a white could not marry an African-American, for instance (Coontz, 2014). In the years before 1967, there were states that restricted people with tuberculosis or prisoners from getting married. Other states also discouraged employers from hiring married women. However, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that state governments had no right to deny people of their freedom of marriage (Coontz, 2014). When such laws were regarded as violations of human rights, gay people also termed the restriction of same-sex marriage as a violation of their liberty and freedom to marry.

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them and their decision as two adults. According to such people, restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality. For example, they point out that this extreme view fails to acknowledge that gay couples also derive fulfilment from their romantic relationships (Steorts, 2015). They additionally contend that an adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for this fulfillment by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing. Whether they love a man or a woman should not be anybody’s concern. The argument also notes that gay couples who have come out clearly demonstrate that they are happy in their relationships.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political, and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards it has significantly changed. Social gay movements and increased numbers of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate the practice. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage, thereby finally making the practice legal in the United States.

Coontz, S. (2014). “Why America changed its mind on gay marriageable”.  CNN . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/opinion/coontz-same-sex-marriage/index.html

Decoo, E. (2014).  Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in the United States from 1977 to 2012 . Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

Demock, M., Doherty, C., & Kiley, J. (2013). Growing support for gay marriage: changed minds and changing demographics.  Gen ,  10 , 1965-1980.

Keleher, A. G., & Smith, E. (2008). Explaining the growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. In  Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA .

Steorts, J. L. (2015). “An equal chance at love: why we should recognize same-sex marriage”.  National Review . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/yes-same-sex-marriage-about-equality-courts-should-not-decide/

Our article explores the intricacies of same-sex marriage discourse, offering a debated essay with a structured outline. Explore our speech writer generator free tool and create a good speech.

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of professional writers

• American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
• Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
• Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
• Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
• Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
• Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
• Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

If you are having any issues choosing a suitable topic for your argumentative essay, worry no more for we have a variety of argumentative topics  to choose from and convince others of your position. Y ou can also get college homework help from Gudwriter and receive a plagiarism free paper written from scratch.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

The strongest argument against same-sex marriage: traditional marriage is in the public interest

by German Lopez

Opponents of same-sex marriage argued that individual states are acting in the public interest by encouraging heterosexual relationships through marriage policies, so voters and legislators in each state should be able to set their own laws.

Some groups, such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cited the secular benefits of heterosexual marriages, particularly the ability of heterosexual couples to reproduce, as Daniel Silliman reported at the Washington Post .

”It is a mistake to characterize laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman as somehow embodying a purely religious viewpoint over against a purely secular one,” the bishops said in their amicus brief . “Rather, it is a common sense reflection of the fact that [homosexual] relationships do not result in the birth of children, or establish households where a child will be raised by its birth mother and father.”

Other groups, like the conservative Family Research Council, warned that allowing same-sex couples to marry would lead to the breakdown of traditional families. But keeping marriage to heterosexual couples, FRC argued in an amicus brief , allows states to “channel the potential procreative sexual activity of opposite-sex couples into stable relationships in which the children so procreated may be raised by their biological mothers and fathers.”

To defend same-sex marriage bans, opponents had to convince courts that there’s a compelling state interest in encouraging heterosexual relationships that isn’t really about discriminating against same-sex couples.

But a majority of Supreme Court justices and most of the lower courts widely rejected this argument, arguing that same-sex marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Most Popular

• The “It Ends With Us” drama is the new “Don’t Worry Darling” drama
• Take a mental break with the newest Vox crossword
• Tim Walz is riding the wave of the vibes election
• Advertisers aren’t buying what X is selling. Is that a crime?
• Why readers love — and love to hate — Colleen Hoover

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

More in archives

Given the Court’s Republican supermajority, this case is unlikely to end well for trans people.

Learn about saving, spending, investing, and more in a monthly personal finance advice column written by Nicole Dieker.

The latest news, analysis, and explainers coming out of the GOP Iowa caucuses.

The economy’s stacked against us.

A Texas judge issued a national ruling against medication abortion. Here’s what you need to know.

Argument for Gay Marriages Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

There have been heated debates over legalization of gay marriages in the society with varied opinions on its acceptance all over the world. Legal and social issues come into force when the debate of gay marriages is discussed. The parameter that gets a lot of attention when gay marriage is discussed is the legal issue because it entails issues to do with civil and basic equal rights.

It is argued that, even though gay marriage is not acceptable to many people, the choice of lifestyle should be respected. There is no tangible evidence though not a fact, that gay marriage has any harm in the society. Some researchers argue that there are good reasons to support legalization of gay marriage.

On the contrary, other scholars propose that legalizing same sex marriages will lead to enactment of more gay rights with time. Serious effects on religious beliefs and communities that oppose same sex marriages in the society may also be encouraged. Some of the laws that are likely to be enacted are those that will compel employers and landlords to hire and lease their property to homosexuals respectively.

Despite the differences in sex orientations, many people hold to their principles and characters in life. Sex and romance activities among individuals who practice monogamous relationships in same sex marriages have proven to do well in the society.

This has been impounded by the decline of sexually transmitted illnesses among couples practicing homosexuality. Children brought up in such families grow up to be stable emotionally and financially. This is due to the fact that rearing of children would not stop even if same sex unions become dominant.

This may be necessitated by adoption and inheritance of children. Through these unions, individuals are able to make long term plans for investment by making sacrifices for future benefits. For all the good reasons for supporting opposite sex marriages, the benefits are the same for same sex unions. This is due to the fact that same sex unions cannot lead to accidental kids, which result in an assumption that same sex marriage should be the most preferred.

Enacting laws that recognize gay marriages would be beneficial to the society in the sense that it promotes equal rights among members of the society. Even though the law recognizes marriage, it should not be taken as a moral right but a sign of appreciation because it does not specify sexual orientation. Therefore, it follows that legalizing same sex marriages is a promotion of harmony in the society.

I would also argue that refusing to legalize gay marriages would not affect the perceptions of people about the act of homosexuality. This can adversely affect the livelihoods of people. In my opinion, gay marriage is not immoral, and the globe would be better placed if all people believe the same.

If discrimination on sexual orientation is persistently practiced, the situation would get worse and cases of abuse would grow rampantly. Therefore, continuous legal bias against gay marriage would contribute to harmful behaviors against other people in the community.

People who oppose gay marriage argue that the practice would adversely affect opposite sex marriages. I do not agree that allowing close to three percent of the population to practice homosexuality would have a harmful effect on the whole population. Making the practice legal would make some people who are heterosexuals shift towards homosexual practices.

There are some individuals who display both homosexual and heterosexual tendencies and are referred to as bisexuals. These groups of people would likely shift to one of the orientations if gay marriages are legalized given their interpretation of the law and the benefits that they would get from the constitution.

Enacting laws that legalize same sex marriages would have very little effect on the way things are carried in the society. As much as there is little to benefit from this practice, the benefits are almost insignificant to members of the society. It is obvious that there are benefits of giving preference to opposite sex marriages. Some people argue that engaging gay marriages encourages the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

I would argue that just as the practice is the same with same sex marriages, there is a greater risk of sexually transmitted diseases in opposite sex marriages compared to gay unions. In the same manner that multiple relationships expose people to sexually transmitted diseases, the same applies to homosexuals who engage with multiple partners. Therefore, gay marriages cannot be merely dismissed on the basis that it propagates transmission of STDs.

From the ancient times, the practice of marriage has always meant the union between a man and a woman and has passed the times from one generation to another. Throughout all the civilizations and modernization that have been witnessed in the globe, polygamy has not been done away with and has remained to be a normal practice among many nations.

With all the civilizations that have been witnessed in history, same sex practices have merely been witnessed. There are worries that this practice would destabilize the longest practices of opposite sex marriages. There are numerous changes in the society that have been witnessed in the recent past including premature sex, divorce, and separation. Some people argue that these occurrences have contributed to a better society but on the other extreme, they have caused harmful effects in the society.

In the same manner that these changes intruded the society like premature sex and divorce, allowing gay marriages would not cause any harm to members of the society but would bring more good. A very small percentage of people would be affected and a state of stability would be promoted among individuals who practice it.

When gay marriages are discussed, most people conclude that the act between two individuals of the same gender is not a natural biological process. They argue this on the basis that the act does not lead to procreation.

If one was to consider that the union of marriage must lead to children, then there would be severe consequences for people who could not get children as a result of sterility or impotence. If it is compulsory that people must give birth to children in marriage, then one is left to wonder the reason for marriage of women who have aged beyond menopause.

This implies that it would be unfair to discriminate against impotent, sterile and aged people. Therefore, it follows people marry for important reasons that include getting children, individual commitment, religious identification, satisfaction and to meet the requirements of the law.

In addition, one cannot merely dismiss the idea of marriage on the basis of age, sterility or impotence clinging on the traditional concept that it is meant for procreation. Gay marriages should, therefore, be allowed irrespective of the reason for their union.

Another popular idea in the public domain is that legalizing gay marriage would endanger the institution of marriage. Majority of the people who are conservatives argue that the institution of marriage is the most important unit in the society.

In my opinion, to deny people from getting into unions is a strange rejection of their basic right. A few years ago, blacks were not allowed to marry the whites yet very few people raised concerns that it was denial of a right. It would not be right to say that bad things would happen if gay marriages are legalized. Those people who criticized contraceptives argued that legalizing it would lead to bad things, though the implementation has brought many good things with it.

To date, the original meaning of marriage has undergone a lot of changes in several dimensions. It is bias to look at marriage from one point of view and leave the other. For instance, making women be owners of property even in their marriage life, or giving them room to sue their husbands of rape. As a result, for any reform that is anticipated in the society, it would be unfair to consider only people among different sex partners without considering homosexuals.

Traditional beliefs which do not support gay marriage have contradictions. According to some researchers, there are very few marriage practices that are believed to be traditional and are indeed in tandem with traditional practices. One of the practices is that marriage is a union between two people. Looking at the bible, there are many instances of men with many wives. For instance, Jacob had two wives who twelve tribes of Israel originated from.

This is typically a religious dimension. In the ancient times, marriage was not recognized in the law neither did it have any attachments with property in Europe’s prole marriages. Marriage was about agreement as a result of love and no attachment to property. All the ideologies that support the concept of marriage today are inconsistent and illogical. Therefore, marriage has been practiced differently in all the communities in the world and gay marriages should be given a chance.

As I stated earlier, being gay is not something of a choice rather, it is something to do with a biological explanation. Most gay people have secondary characteristics resembling people of the opposite sex, some of which are like soft skin, soft voice even the walking gait resembles that of the opposite sex. Secondary sexual characteristics are usually brought about by the hormones in the body. Male and female have different hormonal balance, some are dominant than others.

This is purely biological occurrence not influenced by external forces. In case of a male with female hormones dominating against female hormones, he may develop secondary sexual characteristics resembling that of female. Gay should just be taken as a lifestyle and not be viewed as people with no morals.

Discriminating gay is like discriminating against minority religious groups. Laws in a country are based on religion which is dominant, how about religions which do not have many followers, should they be discriminate against in the expense of the others or treated equally.

This is against the law of freedom of worship. Some religions believe in gay marriages and based on the freedom of worship, gay marriages should not be discriminated against. Therefore, I propose that gay individuals in the society should be embraced and treated normally as others.

Gay is a practice that has been brought about in the society as a result of modernization and civilization. Just like any other changes in the society, gay marriages should not be condemned. People should accept the practice in the society so that there is understanding and respect of people’s rights. As argued above, I strongly support legalization of gay marriages.

American Civil Liberties Union. 1996. Gay Marriage . California, CA: Greenhaven Press.

Sullivan, A. 2000. Why ‘civil union’ isn’t marriage . Web.

• Same-Sex Couples Should Enter Into Legally Recognized Unions?
• Gay Marriage and Parenting
• Homosexuals’ Right to Marry
• Medical and Social Stances on Homosexuality
• Homosexuality - Nature or Nurture?
• Gay Couples Should Not to Marry
• How females flirt with males
• Arguments for Gay Marriages
• Opposition to the Legalization of Same Sex Marriage
• The Concept of Same Sex Marriage and Child Adoption
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, November 6). Argument for Gay Marriages. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-gay-marriages/

"Argument for Gay Marriages." IvyPanda , 6 Nov. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-gay-marriages/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Argument for Gay Marriages'. 6 November.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Argument for Gay Marriages." November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-gay-marriages/.

1. IvyPanda . "Argument for Gay Marriages." November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-gay-marriages/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Argument for Gay Marriages." November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-gay-marriages/.

• Gay Marriage: Theological and Moral Arguments
• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Focus Areas
• Religious and Catholic Ethics

Gay Marriage

Theological and moral arguments.

A theological approach that might open up the possibility for greater Christian acceptance of, and ecclesiastical approval for, same sex unions.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Gay Marriage — Debating Gay Marriage: Arguments for Equality and Traditional Values

Debating Gay Marriage: Arguments for Equality and Traditional Values

• Categories: Gay Marriage LGBT

About this sample

Words: 749 |

Published: Sep 7, 2023

Words: 749 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Chapter 1: arguments for gay marriage, chapter 2: arguments against gay marriage, chapter 3: implications for contemporary issues, conclusion: navigating a complex discourse.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 684 words

2 pages / 801 words

2 pages / 1085 words

1 pages / 540 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Gay Marriage

The issue of gay marriage has been a controversial topic for decades. While some argue that it is a basic human right that needs to be recognized, others believe that it undermines the sanctity of traditional marriage and poses [...]

The debate over the legalization of LGBT marriage has been a contentious issue for many years, stirring passionate arguments from both proponents and opponents. On one side, advocates argue for equality, human rights, and the [...]

Over the past few decades, the debate surrounding the legalization of gay marriage has been at the forefront of political and social discussions. While many countries and states have made significant progress in legalizing [...]

Marriage has always been a fundamental institution in our societies, a vow to cherish and love one another until death do us part. However, for too long, the definition of marriage has been limited to the union between a man and [...]

The debate over same-sex marriage has been a outstanding case, specifically in the Tunisian society where LGBTQ rights are to this day hinder. Thus, many humans still disagree with same-sex marriage whilst others are for [...]

Close your eyes and imagine that you are seeing a beautiful couple who are obviously in love. You also notice a baby stroller and an adorable baby boy in it. You see their hands and notice that they both are wearing a wedding [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Forgotten password

Please enter the email address that you use to login to TeenInk.com, and we'll email you instructions to reset your password.

• Poetry All Poetry Free Verse Song Lyrics Sonnet Haiku Limerick Ballad
• Fiction All Fiction Action-Adventure Fan Fiction Historical Fiction Realistic Fiction Romance Sci-fi/Fantasy Scripts & Plays Thriller/Mystery All Novels Action-Adventure Fan Fiction Historical Fiction Realistic Fiction Romance Sci-fi/Fantasy Thriller/Mystery Other
• Nonfiction All Nonfiction Bullying Books Academic Author Interviews Celebrity interviews College Articles College Essays Educator of the Year Heroes Interviews Memoir Personal Experience Sports Travel & Culture All Opinions Bullying Current Events / Politics Discrimination Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking Entertainment / Celebrities Environment Love / Relationships Movies / Music / TV Pop Culture / Trends School / College Social Issues / Civics Spirituality / Religion Sports / Hobbies All Hot Topics Bullying Community Service Environment Health Letters to the Editor Pride & Prejudice What Matters
• Reviews All Reviews Hot New Books Book Reviews Music Reviews Movie Reviews TV Show Reviews Video Game Reviews Summer Program Reviews College Reviews
• Art/Photo Art Photo Videos
• Summer Guide Program Links Program Reviews
• College Guide College Links College Reviews College Essays College Articles

Summer Guide

College guide.

• Song Lyrics

All Fiction

• Action-Adventure
• Fan Fiction
• Historical Fiction
• Realistic Fiction
• Sci-fi/Fantasy
• Scripts & Plays
• Thriller/Mystery

All Nonfiction

• Author Interviews
• Celebrity interviews
• College Articles
• College Essays
• Educator of the Year
• Personal Experience
• Travel & Culture

All Opinions

• Current Events / Politics
• Discrimination
• Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
• Entertainment / Celebrities
• Environment
• Love / Relationships
• Movies / Music / TV
• Pop Culture / Trends
• School / College
• Social Issues / Civics
• Spirituality / Religion
• Sports / Hobbies

All Hot Topics

• Community Service
• Letters to the Editor
• Pride & Prejudice
• What Matters

All Reviews

• Hot New Books
• Book Reviews
• Music Reviews
• Movie Reviews
• TV Show Reviews
• Video Game Reviews

Summer Program Reviews

• College Reviews
• Writers Workshop
• Regular Forums
• Program Links
• Program Reviews
• College Links

Argumentative Essay : Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?

Gay marriage is a very big issue in this country. Some people believe that same-sex couples should have access to the same marriage benefits and public acknowledgement enjoyed by Heterosexual couples while other people believe that gay marriage should be illegal. In my opinion I believe that gay marriage should be legal for certain reasons. Gay marriage should be legal because it can bring financial gain to state and local government. Additionally gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt,providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care. Finally Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. Gay marriage can bring financial gain to state and local government. To begin, there is information that state that same-sex marriage can bring a lot of financial gain to the state and government. According to procon.org, “Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called ‘marriage penalty’), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs,” which clearly explains that gay marriage would decrease the amount of money the government pay for the income tax for people. Secondly, gay marriage would bring a lot of money to the city’s economy. According to procon.org, “The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the city’s economy and $184 million to the state’s economy over three years.” I believe this would be a great deal to the economy because it gains more money than it should be gaining over time. So gay marriage should be legal because it brings a lot of money to the government. Gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care. Since same-sex couples can't make kids, they would adopt children who are in need of a family instead of them staying in foster care. According to Procon.org, “In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted. [44] A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems,” this means that if gay marriage is legalized, a lot of kids would be adopted and a very few of them would be in a foster care. Secondly, children who need to be adopted do not choose the sex of their new parents, all they need is two loving parents who would care for them no matter of their gender. The procon website states that “A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were ‘as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents.’ [46] As Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein argues, "We should be begging gay couples to adopt children. We should see this as a great boon that gay marriage could bring to kids who need nothing more than two loving parents,’” These children who don't have families need parents who would care for them and most of the couples who adopt children are same-sex couples. The more gay marriage legalized the more children are out of foster care. Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. As a start, we all have the right to do whatever we want and we all have the right to love who we want. If a person wants to marry somebody who has the same sex as them, then let I believe it should be legal because we all have freedom and equality in this country. According to the website procon.org, “The US Supreme Court ruled in 1974's Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the ‘freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.’” This clearly demonstrates that we all have the freedom of doing whatever we want and nobody should stop gay people to get married because they also have their rights. Secondly,Since gay marriage is protected by the constitution’s commitments to liberty and equality, then gay marriage should already be legal because it is already protected by the laws. According to Procon.org, “US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses." This combination means that banning gay marriage is unfair because it is already protected by United States Laws that everybody has the right to do their own personal things. Opponents of gay marriage feel that it should be illegal because it may lead to more children being raised in same-sex households, which they claim is not an optimum environment because children need both a mother and father. First of all, this claim is inaccurate because same-sex couples adopt children who are in need of parents (the sex of the parents does not matter to them as long as they got people who loves them) According to Procon.org, Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein argues that “We should see this as a great boon that gay marriage could bring to kids who need nothing more than two loving parents." This demonstrates that children do not have to choose what kind of parents they want, as long as they have two people who loves them unconditionally .The prosecution also argues that marriage is a privilege not a right. This claim is false because gay marriage is a civil right. According To procon.org, “ The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," [60] and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. This evidence proves that the opposing side’s claim is inaccurate because the supreme court already claimed that gay marriage is a civil right and everybody has the right to choose who they want to marry. Sex does not matter, love matters. In conclusion, gay marriage should be legal for several reasons. First, it can bring financial gain to state and local government. Second, it would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care. Finally, gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. On that note, everybody has the right to marry whoever they want. If America is really the place where everybody has their own freedom, and rights, then why marrying who you want is not legal? Just put yourself in their shoes. They did not choose to be different. They are also people like everyone else. Nobody has the right to discriminate people just because they’re different. So we should all stand up and help gay people get their rights. They deserve it because they’re people like everyone else.

Similar Articles

Join the discussion.

This article has 1 comment.

• Subscribe to Teen Ink magazine
• Submit to Teen Ink
• Find A College
• Find a Summer Program

Share this on

Send to a friend.

Thank you for sharing this page with a friend!

Tell my friends

Choose what to email.

Which of your works would you like to tell your friends about? (These links will automatically appear in your email.)

Send your email

Delete my account, we hate to see you go please note as per our terms and conditions, you agreed that all materials submitted become the property of teen ink. going forward, your work will remain on teenink.com submitted “by anonymous.”, delete this, change anonymous status, send us site feedback.

If you have a suggestion about this website or are experiencing a problem with it, or if you need to report abuse on the site, please let us know. We try to make TeenInk.com the best site it can be, and we take your feedback very seriously. Please note that while we value your input, we cannot respond to every message. Also, if you have a comment about a particular piece of work on this website, please go to the page where that work is displayed and post a comment on it. Thank you!

Pardon Our Dust

Teen Ink is currently undergoing repairs to our image server. In addition to being unable to display images, we cannot currently accept image submissions. All other parts of the website are functioning normally. Please check back to submit your art and photography and to enjoy work from teen artists around the world!

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Argumentative essay: Gay marriage

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Argumentative essay: Gay marriage. (2016, Mar 23). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/argumentative-essay-gay-marriage-essay

"Argumentative essay: Gay marriage." StudyMoose , 23 Mar 2016, https://studymoose.com/argumentative-essay-gay-marriage-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). Argumentative essay: Gay marriage . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/argumentative-essay-gay-marriage-essay [Accessed: 10 Aug. 2024]

"Argumentative essay: Gay marriage." StudyMoose, Mar 23, 2016. Accessed August 10, 2024. https://studymoose.com/argumentative-essay-gay-marriage-essay

"Argumentative essay: Gay marriage," StudyMoose , 23-Mar-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/argumentative-essay-gay-marriage-essay. [Accessed: 10-Aug-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). Argumentative essay: Gay marriage . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/argumentative-essay-gay-marriage-essay [Accessed: 10-Aug-2024]

• Advocating for Marriage Equality: An Argument in Favor of Legalizing Gay Marriage Pages: 5 (1434 words)
• Gay marriage persuasive essay Pages: 2 (566 words)
• Contention about gay marriage Pages: 2 (331 words)
• Gay Marriage Outline Pages: 6 (1691 words)
• Reflective Paper on Gay Marriage Pages: 10 (2731 words)
• Gay Marriage is Immoral Pages: 7 (1815 words)
• Utilitarianism and Gay Marriage Pages: 7 (2072 words)
• Introduction To Gay Marriage English Language Pages: 6 (1689 words)
• Persuasive- Pro Gay Marriage Pages: 2 (508 words)
• Gay Marriage and Equality Pages: 5 (1400 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Argumentative Essay Example

Gay Marriage Argumentative Essays Samples For Students

33 samples of this type

Do you feel the need to examine some previously written Argumentative Essays on Gay Marriage before you start writing an own piece? In this free collection of Gay Marriage Argumentative Essay examples, you are granted a thrilling opportunity to explore meaningful topics, content structuring techniques, text flow, formatting styles, and other academically acclaimed writing practices. Adopting them while crafting your own Gay Marriage Argumentative Essay will definitely allow you to complete the piece faster.

Presenting superb samples isn't the only way our free essays service can help students in their writing ventures – our experts can also compose from point zero a fully customized Argumentative Essay on Gay Marriage that would make a genuine basis for your own academic work.

Good Argumentative Essay On Same-Sex Marriage

Introduction, sample argumentative essay on legalizing same-sex marriage, same sex marriage argumentative essay examples.

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your argumentative essay done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Example Of Same Sex Marriage Arguments Essay

Argumentative essay on should gay marriage be legal, controversial subject with argument (same sex marriage) argumentative essay, argumentative essay on changing tides: same-sex marriage policy and public opinion in the united states, electorate determinants 3 argumentative essay sample.

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Man and Woman, Woman and Woman or Man and Man 4 Procreation or Not 4 Optimum Environment for Children 5 Gay Relationships are Moral or Immoral 5 Federal Law 6 President Obama 7 Politicians and Media Figures 8 Conclusion 10 Work Cited 10

Gay Marriage In America Argumentative Essay Examples

Same-sex marriage is the legal union between people of the same sex. The debate concerning the marriage rights and benefits to gay couples has been intense since early 1970s. In 1996, the then US president Bill Clinton, signed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) into law (Pinello 12). This Act gives a legal definition of Marriage as a legal union between one woman and one man. However, this enactment gave the definition of marriage for federal law purposes only and gave authority to the states to make their own rulings concerning the matter.

Argumentative Essay On Gay Marriage

This thesis aims to highlight the issue of gay marriage that is now being seen in a positive light. It has readily gained acceptance over so many years. People are beginning to see it as an acceptable reality. The roots of its acceptance are also traced through various countries with so many countries beginning to understand how essential it is to allow man with the freedom of anything.

Lessons From Frederick Douglass Argumentative Essay

Same-sex marriage and discrimination, gay marriage movement argumentative essay, adam and eve not adam and steve argumentative essay samples, free why same sex marriage is bad for society argumentative essay sample, gay marriage argument essays: should it be legalized, gay marriage argumentative essays example, good example of argumentative essay on same-sex marriage, legislating through judicial decision-making: the supreme court argumentative essay sample, gay marriage and federal benefits argumentative essays example.

[Client’s Name] [Client’s Professor] [Client’s Subject] [Date Passed]

Should Gay Couples Be Able To Marry Argumentative Essay

Gay marriages argumentative essay example, good argumentative essay on same sex marriage, argumentative essay on should homosexuals be able to marry, letter to the editor on the rights of the gay community argumentative essay example, example of argumentative essay on gay rights in canada, free argumentative essay on gay marriages.

Marriage is a social union between two people, a union that promotes connection. The definition of marriage often varies depending on individual beliefs, cultural values among others. It can be defined as a union where individual relationships such as intimacy and sex are accepted. Marriage is formalized through a wedding either in a law court or in a church. Marriage was naturally supposed to be between people of different sex but in recent times, marriages between people of the same sex have been a normal scenario. Marriage is however not an institution for companionship alone but also for procreation, something gay couples are unable to do.

Legalizing Gay Marriage Argumentative Essay Examples

Liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness argumentative essay examples, argumentative essay on same-sex marriage, good argumentative essay on gay rights in social media, aristotle and gay marriage argumentative essay, judicial activism fosters social change in america argumentative essay sample, example of argumentative essay on john stuart mill.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Watch CBS News

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff admits affair during first marriage

By Nancy Cordes , Faris Tanyos

Updated on: August 3, 2024 / 10:02 PM EDT / CBS News

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff acknowledged Saturday to having an extramarital affair during his first marriage following a report about the relationship that appeared in DailyMail.com. The relationship with a teacher at his children's school occurred several years before he met and married Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee .

Emhoff's admission comes after the Daily Mail reported the teacher became pregnant in 2009, but did not have the baby. CBS News is not naming the woman involved in the relationship.

Two sources — both of whom were close to the woman at the time of her relationship with Emhoff — told CBS News that the woman's pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. 

Those two sources, along with a third source familiar with the relationship — all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity — said that while Emhoff was legally married at the time to his first wife, Kerstin Emhoff, the two were separated when the affair happened. All three said that, contrary to the Daily Mail report, the woman did not work as a nanny for the Emhoff children. She taught at their school, though she was not teaching either child at the time of the relationship with Emhoff, the sources said.

"During my first marriage, Kerstin and I went through some tough times on account of my actions," Emhoff said in a statement provided to CBS News on Saturday. "I took responsibility, and in the years since, we worked through things as a family and have come out stronger on the other side."

Emhoff, who worked as an entertainment lawyer prior to becoming second gentleman, shares two adult children, Ella and Cole, with his former wife. 

In her own statement released Saturday, Kerstin said that "Doug and I decided to end our marriage for a variety of reasons, many years ago. He is a great father to our kids, continues to be a great friend to me and I am really proud of the warm and supportive blended family Doug, Kamala, and I have built together."

Court records show that Kerstin Emhoff filed for divorce in 2009. It appears to have been finalized in late 2010. 

A spokesperson for the Harris campaign declined comment. 

A source familiar with the situation told CBS News that Harris knew about the affair prior to their marriage, and it was also known to those in the Biden campaign who conducted the VP vetting process in 2020.

Harris and Emhoff met in 2013 and married in 2014. They do not have children together. Emhoff's adult children call Harris "Mamala," and their close relationship has been widely documented. Harris even presided over Cole's wedding last year.

Arden Farhi contributed to this report.

• Kamala Harris
• Douglas Emhoff
• 2024 Elections

Nancy Cordes is CBS News' chief White House correspondent based in Washington, D.C. Cordes has won numerous awards for her reporting, including multiple Emmys, Edward R. Murrow awards, and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award.

More from CBS News

Harris, Biden to campaign together for first time since he dropped out of race

Trump mistaken about harrowing helicopter ride, Willie Brown says

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez praises Walz's "many different assets"

Audio shows Trump praised Walz in 2020 for handling of George Floyd riots

Election Highlights: Harris Has Votes Needed to Be Nominee, D.N.C. Says

The party chair said she had won enough delegates to secure the nomination, setting up Kamala Harris to become the first Black woman and person of South Asian heritage to earn the top spot on a major political ticket for president.

• Share full article

Nicholas Nehamas Reid J. Epstein and Simon J. Levien

Here’s the latest on the presidential race.

Vice President Kamala Harris has won enough delegates to secure the Democratic Party’s nomination, the Democratic National Committee said on Friday, setting Ms. Harris up to become the first Black woman and person of South Asian heritage to earn the top spot on a major political ticket for president.

Jaime Harrison, the party chair, said Ms. Harris’s nomination would become official after the party’s highly unusual, virtual roll call vote ends on Monday. On Friday, Ms. Harris’s campaign announced the addition of several top advisers, including David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s first presidential run.

Here’s what to know:

Nearing a V.P. choice: A law firm enlisted by the Harris campaign completed its formal process of vetting potential running mates. It turned over its findings to the campaign on Thursday, leaving the decision up to Ms. Harris, who will meet with finalists this weekend. Several contenders canceled events this weekend , reflecting a desire to be available for those conversations. Ms. Harris is expected to start campaigning with her chosen vice-presidential candidate early next week.

Staff moves: In addition to Mr. Plouffe, the Harris campaign is bringing on board Jennifer Palmieri, a former Obama and Clinton communications director; Stephanie Cutter, Mr. Obama’s deputy campaign manager in 2012; and Mitch Stewart, who was Mr. Obama’s battleground states director that same year. The new aides will all report to Jen O’Malley Dillon, the campaign chair.

Campaign cash: The Trump and Harris campaigns have announced their fund-raising totals for July, an extraordinary month in presidential politics that brought the attempted assassination of former President Donald J. Trump, his formal nomination as the Republican candidate, the end of President Biden’s candidacy and the start of Ms. Harris’s. While both major-party candidates experienced fund-raising surges amid the upheaval, re-energized Democrats sent a record-setting $310 million into the coffers of the Harris campaign and its allied groups, more than doubling the $139 million that Mr. Trump took in, itself an enormous sum.

Lawyers call to protect democracy: On Friday, a bipartisan task force of the American Bar Association called on lawyers across the country to protect democracy and fend off “rising authoritarianism.” The statement by the group, led by J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former federal appeals court judge appointed by President George Bush, and Jeh C. Johnson, a homeland security secretary under President Barack Obama, does not mention Mr. Trump by name but appears to be referring to his attempt to subvert his 2020 election loss.

Prisoner swap: Ms. Harris, alongside President Biden, met with three Americans released in a prisoner swap with Russia, including Evan Gershkovich , a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The deal was a diplomatic victory for the Biden administration, blunting suggestions by Mr. Trump that securing the journalist’s release would hinge on his returning to office.

Neil Vigdor Maggie Haberman and Simon J. Levien

Trump cancels a debate with Harris on ABC News and pitches one with Fox News instead.

Former President Donald J. Trump declared late on Friday that he was dropping out of an ABC News debate scheduled for Sept. 10 and presented a counterproposal to Vice President Kamala Harris, his presumptive opponent, to face off on Fox News six days earlier.

The change, which Mr. Trump announced on his social media site, Truth Social, raised objections from the Harris campaign and appeared to throw a potential showdown between the rivals into question.

A campaign official for Ms. Harris on Saturday accused Mr. Trump of scheming up the Fox News debate to distract from reneging on his commitment to the ABC debate. Mr. Trump had agreed to that debate in May, before President Biden dropped out of the race and before Mr. Biden’s calamitous performance in a CNN debate on June 27.

“Donald Trump is running scared and trying to back out of the debate he already agreed to and running straight to Fox News to bail him out,” Michael Tyler, the communications director for the Harris campaign, said in a statement. “He needs to stop playing games and show up to the debate he already committed to on Sept 10.”

Mr. Tyler said that the Harris campaign was open to discussing further debates if Mr. Trump honored his commitment to the ABC debate.

“Mr. Anytime, Anywhere, Anyplace should have no problem with that unless he’s too scared to show up on the 10th,” he said.

A spokesman for ABC News would not say whether the network would go ahead with its debate and give time only to Ms. Harris. In a post on X on Saturday, Ms. Harris said: “I’ll be there on September 10th, like he agreed to. I hope to see him there.”

A spokesman for the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday. Representatives for Fox News did not respond to questions.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly railed against ABC News, which he is suing for defamation, a case that a federal judge in Florida recently allowed to move forward . He has attacked George Stephanopoulos, the host of “This Week” on ABC, who did the first television interview with Mr. Biden after his debate performance. He also turned combative toward Rachel Scott of ABC News during a question-and-answer session on Wednesday at a convention of Black journalists in Chicago.

Mr. Trump has appeared to be struggling to find his footing since Mr. Biden left the race, despite the fact that Democrats had been increasingly calling for such a change since the president’s debate performance.

He has tested out a series of nicknames against Ms. Harris and has made clear he would rather attack her personally and focus the public discussion on her race — Ms. Harris’s father was born in Jamaica and her mother in India — than attempt to tie her to the Biden administration’s record or her own record as a prosecutor in California.

Mr. Trump, who spent nearly 16 months getting nonstop attention since he was first criminally indicted in March 2023, has also struggled to try to inject himself back into the headlines at a moment when Ms. Harris is enjoying a political honeymoon. By canceling the ABC debate, Mr. Trump has put himself back in the news cycle.

According to Mr. Trump’s post on his social media site, the Fox News debate would take place on Sept. 4 at a to-be-determined location in Pennsylvania, one of the most consequential battleground states. The network’s anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum would moderate.

Mr. Trump said on social media that the Fox News debate would have a live audience; the previous debate between him and Mr. Biden was hosted by CNN in an empty venue. Though both campaigns agreed to the format of the first debate, Mr. Trump had bemoaned the lack of a crowd.

He added that the rules would be similar to the CNN debate, though he did not specify which rules. The candidates’ microphones in the June debate were muted when it was not their turn to speak to prevent interruptions.

Mr. Trump also said that he was “totally prepared to accept” Ms. Harris as the Democrats’ new candidate. Since her campaign suddenly took shape after Mr. Biden dropped out of the race about two weeks ago, Mr. Trump has characterized her ascendancy as a “coup” within the Democratic Party. In his debate announcement, the former president complained about the shake-up.

“I spent Hundreds of Millions of Dollars, Time, and Effort fighting Joe, and when I won the Debate, they threw a new Candidate into the ring,” Mr. Trump said on his social media site on Friday, adding that he hoped to tie Ms. Harris to Mr. Biden’s policies.

The Sept. 4 date is close to the start of some states’ early voting windows and long after Ms. Harris has clinched the nomination from her party. (The Democratic National Committee said on Friday that she had already won enough delegates in a virtual roll call vote to secure the party’s nomination.)

The first presidential debate between Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump had a seismic impact on the race. Mr. Biden gave a halting performance, in contrast to Mr. Trump, who spoke comparatively vigorously while repeatedly advancing falsehoods.

Mr. Biden’s garbled responses supercharged concerns among his Democratic colleagues about his age and health, as well as his ability to beat Mr. Trump in the general election. After several weeks of declining poll numbers and mounting pressure from key allies, Mr. Biden announced on July 21 that he would withdraw from the race.

Since then, Ms. Harris has challenged Mr. Trump to debate her and criticized his reluctance to commit to a date. As recently as Friday morning, in an interview with Fox Business, he was refusing to say whether he would debate Ms. Harris.

After the president dropped out, Ms. Harris said she would be willing to debate in Mr. Biden’s place, but Mr. Trump was noncommittal.

“Well Donald, I do hope you’ll reconsider to meet me on the debate stage,” Ms. Harris said at her rally in Atlanta on Tuesday. “Because as the saying goes, ‘If you’ve got something to say, say it to my face.’”

Advertisement

Simon J. Levien

Vice President Kamala Harris has no public events on her schedule this weekend, according to the White House. She will be in Washington, and in the next few days is expected to meet with the finalists in her running-mate search and announce her choice by Tuesday.

Neil Vigdor

Shapiro’s college-era criticism of Palestinians draws fresh scrutiny.

Gov. Josh Shapiro, Democrat of Pennsylvania, wrote in his college newspaper three decades ago that Palestinians were “too battle-minded” to achieve a two-state solution in the Middle East, prompting criticism as Vice President Kamala Harris considers him to be her running mate.

Mr. Shapiro, 51, has embraced his Jewish identity and been one of the Democratic Party’s staunchest defenders of Israel at a moment when the party is splintered over the war in Gaza.

But he says his views have evolved since publishing an opinion essay as a college student at the University of Rochester in New York, when he wrote that Palestinians were incapable of establishing their own homeland and making it successful, even with help from Israel and the United States.

“They are too battle-minded to be able to establish a peaceful homeland of their own,” he wrote in the essay, published in the Sept. 23, 1993, edition of The Campus Times , the student newspaper. “They will grow tired of fighting amongst themselves and will turn outside against Israel.”

Mr. Shapiro, who was 20 at the time, noted in his essay that he had spent five months studying in Israel and had volunteered in the Israeli Army.

“The only way the ‘peace plan’ will be successful is if the Palestinians do not ruin it,” Mr. Shapiro wrote, adding, “Palestinians will not coexist peacefully.”

During a news conference on Friday at Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, the nation’s first historically Black college or university, Mr. Shapiro tried to distance himself from those remarks, which were first reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer .

“Something I wrote when I was 20, is that what you’re talking about?” Mr. Shapiro told a reporter who asked him about it. “I was 20.”

Mr. Shapiro said he had been in favor of a two-state solution, with “Israelis and Palestinians living peacefully side by side” long before the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7 that started the war in Gaza.

“It is my hope that we can see a day where peace will reign in the Middle East,” he said, “where there will be a two-state solution, where all leaders involved in the conversations will respect the other side and show a willingness to make the hard choices to find peace.”

Mr. Shapiro’s explanation did not satisfy the Philadelphia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which later on Friday called on him to apologize.

“We are deeply disturbed by the racist, anti-Palestinian views that Governor Shapiro expressed in this article,” Ahmet Tekelioglu, the group’s executive director said in a statement. “We are also concerned by his failure to clearly apologize for those hateful comments, especially given how quickly and harshly he has targeted college students protesting the Gaza genocide for their speech.”

In regards to Mr. Shapiro’s having written that he had volunteered in the Israeli army, a spokesman for Mr. Shapiro, Manuel Bonder, said in a statement: “While he was in high school, Josh Shapiro was required to do a service project, which he and several classmates completed through a program that took them to a kibbutz in Israel where he worked on a farm and at a fishery. The program also included volunteering on service projects on an Israeli army base. At no time was he engaged in any military activities.”

Mr. Shapiro has been one of the most vocal party leaders to condemn the documented rise of antisemitism since the Hamas-led attack on Israel. When he was previously asked if he considered himself a Zionist, he said that he did.

He has also not shied away from criticizing college administrators over their response to campus antisemitism, including at the University of Pennsylvania.

If Ms. Harris chooses Mr. Shapiro to be her running mate, he will become only the second Jewish vice-presidential nominee on a major-party ticket. The first was Joseph I. Lieberman, the former Connecticut senator who died in March . He ran with Al Gore in 2000.

Jon Hurdle and Katie Glueck contributed reporting.

Eduardo Medina

Reporting from Lucama, N.C.

Mark Robinson tries to reframe his strict anti-abortion position in a new ad.

Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson of North Carolina, the Republican nominee for governor, released a new ad on Friday that sought to moderate his opposition to abortion, saying that he supports the current state law, which generally bans the procedure after 12 weeks of pregnancy.

His campaign had previously said that he wanted a so-called heartbeat law, which would ban the procedure after about six weeks of pregnancy, when many women have yet to realize they are pregnant.

Mr. Robinson’s softened stance was included in an ad that focused on the story of how his wife, Yolanda Hill Robinson, had an abortion in 1989 — a decision that he said “was like this solid pain between us that we never spoke of.” The couple had previously disclosed the abortion in a Facebook video in 2022.

The ad appeared to be an attempt by Mr. Robinson’s campaign to blunt the criticism he has received for his past comments on the issue and to get ahead of future attacks. One of the first ads released by his Democratic opponent, Josh Stein, the attorney general of North Carolina, featured a compilation of clips showing Mr. Robinson discussing his restrictive views on abortion.

“An abortion in this country is not about protecting the lives of mothers,” Mr. Robinson says in one clip. “It’s about killing a child because you weren’t responsible enough to keep your skirt down.”

Mr. Stein’s campaign has accused Mr. Robinson of hiding his true intentions to seek a stricter abortion ban if elected, pointing to some of his past comments, such as when he said in February: “We’ve got it down to 12 weeks. The next goal is to get it down to six, and then just keep moving from there.”

Abortion is a central issue in North Carolina’s race for governor, which is expected to be one of the most expensive and consequential elections in the country, and one that could influence the presidential race. Republicans have rarely held the governor’s mansion in Raleigh over the past century, and recent polls show that the race is tight this year. Still, a Democratic presidential candidate has not won the state since Barack Obama in 2008.

The governor’s race also has been viewed as a Rorschach test for the swing state, where the current Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, is term-limited. Will voters go with a moderate Democrat in Mr. Stein, or veer to the right with Mr. Robinson?

With less than 100 days before the election, Mr. Robinson’s ad underscored how some Republicans have taken a more cautious approach when discussing abortion since the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which energized Democrats in the 2022 midterms. Despite the anti-abortion movement’s longtime support for a national ban, Republican former President Donald J. Trump has said that abortion restrictions should be left to the states.

In North Carolina and elsewhere, Democrats have pushed to make abortion rights a focal point, with Mr. Stein repeatedly bringing up Mr. Robinson's comments in stump speeches. Republicans have sought to tie Mr. Stein to President Biden and portray him as an out-of-touch extreme liberal.

Mr. Stein has said he supports a framework for abortion based on Roe v. Wade, which generally allowed the procedure through the point of viability, or roughly between 24 and 26 weeks.

In his ad on Friday, Mr. Robinson specified that he supports the current 12-week ban, which includes exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.

“When I’m governor, mothers in need will be supported,” Mr. Robinson said.

Morgan Hopkins, a spokeswoman for Mr. Stein’s campaign, said in a statement that Mr. Robinson “has resorted to running from his record and misleading voters.”

“If North Carolinians want to know where Mark Robinson really stands on abortion, they should listen to every other comment he’s made on the issue before today,” Ms. Hopkins said.

Mr. Robinson, a fiery orator who has been bolstered by the MAGA faction of his base, has drawn criticism in the past for incendiary comments perceived as antisemitic, hateful and conspiratorial.

In recent months, Mr. Robinson has attempted to moderate his tone in public speeches and focused more of his campaign on the economy, though he still discusses cultural issues, such as denouncing diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and transgender women in sports.

The Trump campaign is characterizing Harris’s immense fund-raising total in July as primarily a product of wealthy elites. A fund-raising email sent today and signed by Trump called the donors behind her a “deep state brigade” and “liberal billionaires.” According to the Harris campaign, two-thirds of the $310 million raised last month came from first-time donors and most of the donations were not greater than $200, indicating a grassroots groundswell around the new candidate.

Noam Scheiber Kate Kelly and Kenneth P. Vogel

Harris’s brother-in-law, Uber’s chief lawyer, is taking a leave to advise her.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s brother-in-law, Tony West, will go on leave as Uber’s chief legal officer later this month to take an unofficial role in her presidential campaign.

Mr. West, a Stanford-trained lawyer and former Justice Department official, has informally advised Ms. Harris throughout her political career and has been by her side frequently since President Biden announced that he would not seek re-election.

The company revealed the change in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday afternoon.

In an email to Uber employees on Friday, Mr. West wrote that while he loved his job at the company, “I have always believed family comes first. So I’ve decided to dedicate myself full-time to supporting my family and my sister-in-law on the campaign trail.” Mr. West is married to Ms. Harris’s sister, Maya.

Beginning Aug. 17, he said, he will work as a “family-member surrogate” for the vice president, sharing the perspective of someone who has long been close to her, but will not have a formal campaign position. He said he intended to return to Uber after the presidential election and stressed that Uber would continue to take no position on the election.

Mr. West was general counsel of PepsiCo before joining Uber in 2017. He served in the Justice Department in the Clinton and Obama administrations and was the department’s third-ranking official from 2012 to 2014.

Some in the labor movement have expressed concerns about Mr. West’s ties to Ms. Harris in light of his role at Uber, which in 2020 helped enact a California ballot measure that exempted its drivers from a state law that would have probably classified them as employees.

As a result of the measure, which was recently upheld by the California Supreme Court, Uber drivers and other gig workers in the state do not benefit from certain legal protections, like state rules governing the minimum wage and overtime. The measure provided some benefits , like a separate wage floor and health care subsidies.

A post on X by the mayor of Philadelphia, Cherelle Parker, stirred speculation online, as it appeared to suggest that Kamala Harris had selected Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania as her running mate. But a member of the mayor’s staff clarified that it was not an announcement. The mayor intended only to express support for Shapiro, whom she hopes Harris will select.

Proud to be back with so many leaders from across our region supporting @KamalaHarris for President and @JoshShapiroPA for VP! We are One CITY, One REGION, and ONE Commonwealth United! @PADems @PhillyDems @Joanna4PA @PADemsChair @IBEW98 @RepHarris @PALaborers pic.twitter.com/Rh1ojbRjcr — Cherelle Parker (@PeopleforParker) August 2, 2024

Katie Glueck

A Philadelphia Inquirer article highlighted a column that Gov. Josh Shapiro, Democrat of Pennsylvania, wrote while in college, which noted that he had volunteered in the Israeli army. In a statement, a Shapiro spokesman, Manuel Bonder, said: “While he was in high school, Josh Shapiro was required to do a service project, which he and several classmates completed through a program that took them to a kibbutz in Israel, where he worked on a farm and at a fishery. The program also included volunteering on service projects on an Israeli army base. At no time was he engaged in any military activities.”

Senator JD Vance of Ohio, during a podcast that was released on Friday, shared an anecdote about the moment former President Donald J. Trump called to ask him to be his running mate. His 7-year-old son, Vance recalled, wanted to discuss Pokémon. “So he’s trying to talk to me about Pikachu, and I’m on the phone with Donald Trump, and I’m like, ‘Son, shut the hell up for for 30 seconds about Pikachu,” he said, referring to the Pokémon mascot. “‘This is the most important phone call of my life. Please just let me take this phone call.’”

Trump questioned the physical appearance of Native American business rivals in the 1990s.

Donald J. Trump’s false suggestion this week that Vice President Kamala Harris “became a Black person” only recently has drawn comparisons by his critics to comments he made about Native Americans three decades ago.

Mr. Trump was testifying before a House subcommittee in 1993 when he disputed the federal government’s recognition of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, which had reached an agreement to build the first casino in Connecticut.

Mr. Trump had been seeking to expand his casino business into the state, a plan opposed by the governor at the time, Lowell P. Weicker Jr., who had left the Republican Party to form a third party.

“They don’t look like Indians to me,” Mr. Trump told what was then the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs during the October 1993 hearing. “And they don’t look like Indians to Indians. And a lot of people are laughing at it.”

Mr. Trump’s critics drew attention to that testimony this week after his remarks at a conference of Black journalists in Chicago. During that appearance, Mr. Trump questioned the racial identity of Ms. Harris, his presumptive opponent in the November election. He said that he hadn’t known that “she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black.” He referred to her Indian heritage, saying, “She was Indian all the way, and then all of a sudden she made a turn and she went, she became a Black person.”

Ms. Harris’s mother immigrated to the United States from India. Her father, who is Black, immigrated from Jamaica.

Like Wednesday’s question-and-answer session, his testimony before Congress in 1993 turned combative and he was rebuked.

“Thank God that’s not the test of whether or not people have rights in this country or not, whether or not they pass your look test,” then-Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, told Mr. Trump.

The lawmaker’s scolding of Mr. Trump, who years later promoted conspiracy theories falsely claiming that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States , did not end there.

“Mr. Trump, you know in the history of this country of where we’ve heard this discussion before?” Mr. Miller said. “They don’t look Jewish to me.”

“Oh, really?” Mr. Trump interjected.

Mr. Miller continued: “They don’t look Indian to me. They don’t look Italian to me. And that was a test for whether people could go into business or not go into business, whether they could get a bank loan. You’re too Black, you’re not Black enough.”

Kenneth Vogel

Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, who is among the Democrats under consideration to be the party’s vice presidential nominee, spoke to a group of more than 60 major donors on Friday afternoon. "This is a candidate donors can rally around," said a person there who insisted on anonymity to discuss the private call.

The appearance was organized by the Democracy Alliance, a club of liberal donors. It was hosted by the former Representative Donna Edwards of Maryland, the Democratic donor and operative Gideon Stein and the Movement Voter PAC.

Shane Goldmacher and Reid J. Epstein

Kamala Harris hires former Obama advisers, building out her campaign.

Vice President Kamala Harris, who formally won enough delegates to secure the Democratic Party nomination on Friday, is remaking a campaign hierarchy originally built to re-elect President Biden by adding several new advisers to the top ranks of her staff, including David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s first presidential run.

The changes, which come with fewer than 100 days until Election Day, provide an injection of talent and experience to a Wilmington, Del., operation that is flush with cash after her campaign announced raising a record-setting $310 million in July — more than double the sum raised by former President Donald J. Trump.

The hirings and promotions continue a whirlwind period for Ms. Harris, who is expected to meet in person with prospective candidates to be her running mate this weekend. The list is said to have narrowed to a half-dozen and the accelerated vetting process, conducted by an outside law firm, is now complete . Her campaign has suggested it will unveil her running mate by Tuesday evening, when the new ticket will hold a rally in Philadelphia to kick off a five-day battleground state tour.

Many of the other new additions to Ms. Harris’s team are veterans of the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns.

Stephanie Cutter, Mr. Obama’s deputy campaign manager in 2012, will now be a senior adviser for message and strategy. Mitch Stewart, Mr. Obama’s 2012 battleground states director, will be a senior adviser for the battleground states this year. Jennifer Palmieri, a former Obama and Clinton communications director, will be a senior adviser to Ms. Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff.

The vice president has also elevated political aides such as Brian Fallon and Megan Jones, who worked for her smaller team on the Biden campaign.

The new Harris aides will all report to Jen O’Malley Dillon, the campaign chair who took over Mr. Biden’s campaign in February and who has been the functional leader of the Harris campaign since Mr. Biden dropped out of the race. Ms. Harris announced last week that she had asked Ms. O’Malley Dillon to remain in charge of her campaign.

“We’re thrilled to expand her team with these battle-tested leaders that know her and know how to win close elections,” Ms. O’Malley Dillon said in a statement. Politico first reported the news that Mr. Plouffe would be joining the Harris campaign.

Sheila Nix, a senior adviser to the Harris campaign and the chief of staff to Ms. Harris, added, “These seasoned and respected leaders are a part of Vice President Harris’s steadfast commitment to grow a team that will ensure we do everything possible to win.”

Some new additions had been widely expected since Ms. Harris replaced Mr. Biden at the top of the ticket. The idea of Mr. Plouffe joining, for instance, had been discussed almost since the moment Ms. Harris entered the race. The reinforcements show that while Ms. Harris is keeping virtually the entire senior team that Mr. Biden had assembled in Wilmington, she wants to supplement it with a raft of fresh faces and voices, many of whom worked for Mr. Obama.

David Axelrod, the former top Obama strategist, hailed them as “an All-Star team” on X, joking: “Believe me, I know. I’ve been blessed to work closely with all them!”

In a virtual roll call on Friday, Ms. Harris formally won enough delegates for the party’s nomination less than three weeks after she entered the race. She spoke by phone to the virtual meeting, saying she was “honored” and excited for the convention later this month in Chicago.

“We’re going to get this done,” Ms. Harris said. “And as your future president, I know we are up to this fight.”

Mr. Plouffe is expected to fill the void left by some of Mr. Biden’s advisers, such as Steve Ricchetti, Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn, who are not expected to be as involved now. Ms. Dunn is joining the pro-Harris super PAC Future Forward.

The lead pollster for the Harris campaign will now be David Binder, a pollster based in San Francisco who has worked with Ms. Harris for two decades. He will oversee the campaign’s existing team of pollsters, who funneled their findings while Mr. Biden was the candidate through Mr. Donilon, the president’s longtime aide. Also joining the polling team is Terrance Woodbury.

The ad firm GMMB, where the prominent Democratic ad maker Jim Margolis is a partner, will build out her media team. Mr. Margolis worked on Ms. Harris’s 2020 campaign.

Quentin Fulks, who served as Mr. Biden’s deputy campaign manager, will now oversee that paid media program.

The campaign also announced that Liz Allen, a former top State Department official , would serve as the chief of staff to Ms. Harris’s running mate, similar to the role she held for Ms. Harris in 2020.

Brian Nelson, a Treasury Department official who worked for Ms. Harris when she was the attorney general of California, will be the campaign’s senior adviser for policy.

Michael Gold

Doug Emhoff accused Trump of purposefully creating a distraction with his interview at the National Association of Black Journalists conference, when he questioned Vice President Harris’s racial identity. “He sits down in front of a Black woman, a journalist, and calls out the Vice President’s identity. So now we’re all talking about it” instead of Trump’s policies and Project 2025, he said.

Donald Trump said in an interview with Fox Business on Friday that Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Meta, called him after the former president survived an assassination attempt in July. Trump said that Zuckerberg told him that he would not endorse a Democrat because he “respected” Trump for his response to the shooting. Zuckerberg said Trump’s fist pump after being shot at was “badass” in a recent interview with Bloomberg.

Trump says Zuckerberg called him after the assassination attempt & he won’t be trying to help Democrats win in 2024 as in 2020 pic.twitter.com/i9LKyqHwmV — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) August 2, 2024

A spokesman for Meta did not dispute that the two men spoke but declined to comment on the content of the call. The spokesman referred to Zuckerberg’s statement immediately after the shooting that he would not endorse any candidates this election. Zuckerberg also declined to endorse a political candidate during the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections.

Nicholas Nehamas and Reid J. Epstein

Reporting from Washington

Kamala Harris has the votes needed to be Democrats’ nominee, D.N.C. says

Vice President Kamala Harris has won enough delegates to secure the Democratic Party’s nomination, the Democratic National Committee said on Friday, setting up Ms. Harris to become the first Black woman and person of South Asian heritage to earn the top spot on a major political ticket for president.

Jaime Harrison, the party chair, said Ms. Harris’s nomination would become official after the party’s highly unusual, virtual roll call vote ends on Monday. He made the announcement during an online meeting for supporters while delegates were still voting in a virtual process devised to formally name the Democratic nominee before the party’s convention this month.

After Mr. Harrison spoke, Ms. Harris phoned into the meeting, saying that she was “honored to be the presumptive Democratic nominee” and that she looked forward to the convention, which begins in Chicago on Aug. 19.

“Later this month, we will gather in Chicago, united as one party, where we’re going to have an opportunity to celebrate this historic moment together,” Ms. Harris said.

The announcement caps five weeks of chaos for Democrats, who had embarked on a pressure campaign — both in public and behind closed doors — to persuade President Biden to drop his re-election bid after his abysmal debate performance against former President Donald J. Trump in June.

Although her place atop the ticket had essentially been a foregone conclusion once Mr. Biden endorsed her after dropping out last month, Ms. Harris has brought her party together remarkably quickly, raising more than $200 million, drawing thousands of people to her rallies and energizing her party’s base.

She has also taken the spotlight from Mr. Trump, weeks after he survived an assassination attempt.

By Friday, 2,350 delegates and counting had voted for Ms. Harris, the only candidate who qualified for the ballot, giving her a majority, Mr. Harrison said. The party said the virtual roll call would ensure that a nominee would be in place by Aug. 7 to avoid potential legal headaches in Ohio . The other option on the ballot was “present.”

Holding the vote online means the traditional roll call at the Democratic National Convention, when the states shout their delegates’ votes from the convention floor, will be purely symbolic. Typically, that is the moment when the party’s presumptive nominee officially clinches the nomination — and is usually met with raucous celebration inside the arena.

Instead, Mr. Harrison broke the news during a glitchy online meeting hosted by the Harris campaign, in which he was initially muted and voices offscreen sometimes interfered with the audio of the on-camera speakers.

“Today, my friends, is special because we can proudly say we will have the first woman of color at the top of a major party ticket,” Mr. Harrison said in making the announcement.

The virtual roll call began at 9 a.m. on Thursday and is set to continue until 6 p.m. on Monday. Each delegate received a personalized virtual roll call voting form by email when the voting began. Delegates were instructed to fill out the forms, which are customized and have watermarks, and return them by email to an inbox maintained by their delegation.

Now the party must prepare for a three-month sprint of a race against Mr. Trump.

One outstanding question for Ms. Harris is whom she will select to run alongside her, which she is expected to announce by Tuesday. Her campaign has said she and her new running mate will appear together that day in Philadelphia, part of a five-day tour of all seven top battleground states.

An intensive vetting process of the prospective candidates wrapped up Thursday afternoon. Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota and Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona are widely seen by Democrats as the top contenders. Ms. Harris is said to have blocked off several hours on her calendar this weekend to meet with those being considered.

Neil Vigdor contributed reporting.

Doug Emhoff, noting he has been on a busy fundraising swing, said that Democratic donors have expressed the need to “push back on that despicable person and his little sidekick,” a reference to Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance.

Perhaps playing to the mostly L.G.B.T.Q. crowd, Doug Emhoff told the more than 100 people at this Fire Island fundraiser that he was at SoulCycle in West Hollywood, Calif. — another gay hotspot — when he learned that President Biden was ending his campaign. He’s speaking openly about his love for his wife, Vice President Harris, and noted that she’s “just about to” complete the process to become the Democratic presidential nominee.

The Harris campaign’s fundraiser on Fire Island raised about $321,000, its hosts said. It’s a mostly male crowd at the event, reflecting the demographic that usually vacations here.

Nicholas Nehamas

The Harris campaign just said on a virtual call with supporters that 2,302 delegates have cast their ballot for Vice President Kamala Harris to become the Democratic Party’s nominee. Harris needs 2,350 votes to achieve a majority, her campaign said.

Doug Emhoff, who is the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, and Chasten Buttegieg, who is the husband of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, are set to appear today at a Harris campaign fund-raiser at a house overlooking a bay in Fire Island Pines, a popular gay vacation destination off the coast of Long Island.

Harris has galvanized L.G.B.T.Q. Democrats. Last month, before President Biden stepped aside, she took part in a fund-raiser at another popular gay vacation spot, Provincetown, Mass.

Donald Trump dismissed a question he was asked on Fox Business about who Vice President Kamala Harris might pick as a running mate, saying, “Can I tell you, I don’t care. Let them do whatever.” He went on to criticize the idea of her choosing Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, who is Jewish. “I think if she picks Shapiro who happens to be Jewish, she loses her little Palestinian base because she has — because they like me, because they think I’m going to bring peace to the Middle East, even though I’m very strong for Israel,” Trump said.

Olympic champion Simone Biles posted on social media that she loves her ‘Black job.’

Simone Biles, who catapulted herself to a sixth gold medal and ninth overall medal in her storied Olympic career with a victory in the women’s all-around gymnastics competition Thursday, seemed to take a not-so-subtle dig at Donald J. Trump on social media.

“I love my black job,” Ms. Biles posted on X on Friday with a heart emoji, an apparent reference to the former president’s recent remarks that “Black jobs” were being taken by undocumented immigrants.

Mr. Trump, who made the comments during a June debate against President Biden, drew criticism for suggesting certain types of jobs apply to Black people.

When he was asked about what he meant by the term “Black job” on Wednesday during a combative appearance at a conference of Black journalists in Chicago, Mr. Trump said: “A Black job is anybody who has a job.”

In that same appearance before the National Association of Black Journalists, Mr. Trump questioned the racial identity of Vice President Kamala Harris, his likely opponent in the November election. He said that Ms. Harris, who is of Jamaican and Indian heritage, “became a Black person” only recently and suggested that it was for political gain, comments that were widely condemned.

As Ms. Biles, who is Black, was closing in on another Olympic triumph this week, Democrats called attention to remarks that Mr. Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance, Republican of Ohio, had once made about her after she withdrew from events in the previous Olympics because of a mental health issue.

Mr. Vance, during an appearance on Fox News in 2021, questioned why Ms. Biles was receiving acclaim for stepping away from the competition at the Tokyo games.

“I think it reflects pretty poorly on our sort of therapeutic society that we try to praise people, not for moments of strength, not for moments of heroism, but for their weakest moments,” Mr. Vance, who was running for the Senate, said at the time.

Democratic operatives were eager to resurface the remarks now that both Mr. Vance and Ms. Biles are back in the spotlight. Aida Ross, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said on Thursday that Mr. Vance was in “no position to be talking about anyone’s else’s ‘weakest moments.’”

“While the rest of the country is celebrating the U.S.A. women’s gymnastics team’s performance at the Olympics, JD Vance is facing his weakest moment amid a gaffe-filled rollout that has left him as the most unpopular V.P. pick in decades,” she said.

Former President Donald Trump pushed back against pressure to debate Vice President Kamala Harris, saying in an interview on Fox Business, “I mean, right now I say, why should I do a debate? I’m leading in the polls, and everybody knows her. Everybody knows me.” Trump did not apply similar logic to President Biden, pushing him to debate, and even in the Fox Business interview he maintained that he wanted to debate Harris, despite his question about the necessity of it.

Simone Biles, fresh off becoming only the third woman gymnast to win an Olympic gold medal twice in the all-around competition, took a not-so-subtle dig on Friday at Donald J. Trump on social media. “I love my black job,” Biles posted on X , a reference to the former president's remarks that “Black jobs” were being taken away by undocumented immigrants. The remarks, first delivered during a debate, were immediately criticized as suggesting certain types of jobs apply to Black people.

I love my black job 🖤 https://t.co/c5wPc6xOY3 — Simone Biles (@Simone_Biles) August 2, 2024

Representative Bob Good of Virginia, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, conceded his Republican primary race on Thursday to John J. McGuire, a challenger backed by Donald Trump after a recount. Good lost by 374 votes, or 0.6 percent, in the June 18 primary. Both the candidates are election deniers, which raised the question of whether either would have accepted an adverse result in the contest.

Theodore Schleifer

Here’s a potential veepstakes tea leaf: Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota and Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky are scheduled to host fund-raisers for the Harris campaign on Monday night, the evening before the deadline that the Harris campaign has suggested it has set to announce its vice-presidential pick. Walz will headline a fund-raiser in Minneapolis, and Beshear will be featured at one in Chicago, according to the invites.

Harris campaign says it raised $310 million in July, more than double Trump’s haul.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign survived a brutal few weeks of fund-raising in July to bounce back so dramatically before the end of the month that she more than doubled the amount of money raised by former President Donald J. Trump, her campaign announced on Friday.

The Harris campaign, which for the first 20 days of July was the Biden campaign, said it had raised $310 million during the month, including $200 million in just seven days after President Biden dropped out of the race.

The Trump campaign and its own allies said on Thursday that they had collected $139 million in July, an enormous sum but well short of what the Harris campaign said it had brought in amid a huge burst of enthusiasm about her candidacy. The Harris campaign raised almost as much in July as the Biden campaign had raised in March, April, May and June combined.

The surge in fund-raising has allowed Democrats, for the first time in months , to have a cash-on-hand advantage over Republicans. The Harris campaign said it now had $377 million in its war chest, in contrast to the $327 million that the Trump campaign has said it has.

Neither campaign disclosed precisely how much of the money was raised or held by the campaigns themselves versus their allied party committees.

Democrats’ fund-raising was said to have plummeted in the first three weeks of the month, in the aftermath of Mr. Biden’s disastrous debate, although precise figures were not known or released by the Biden campaign. But after Mr. Biden dropped out of the race on July 21, the fund-raising spigot was opened wide. The $200 million that the Harris campaign said it had raised in the week after Mr. Biden ended his re-election bid was more than Mr. Biden’s haul in the first three months of the year.

The Trump campaign’s own fund-raising was strong — and most likely would have far outstripped the Democrats’ had the party not changed its standard-bearer. The $139 million raised in July amounted to one of the Trump team’s strongest fund-raising months to date, just off the sum raised in May, when Mr. Trump’s supporters responded to his felony conviction with $141 million in donations.

After collecting $112 million in June, donations for the Trump team ticked up in July as Mr. Trump survived an assassination attempt, was formally nominated at the Republican convention in Milwaukee and picked Senator JD Vance of Ohio to be his running mate — events that surely motivated his donors and supporters.

July was the second straight month in which Democrats out-raised the Trump team. In June, when Mr. Biden was still atop the ticket, his campaign raised $127 million and ended the month with $240 million on hand, all before the history-making events that would unfold over the next four weeks.

Emily Cochrane

Reporting from Nashville

Gloria Johnson, a member of the ‘Tennessee Three,’ will seek to unseat Marsha Blackburn in the Senate.

Gloria Johnson, a Tennessee state representative who faced an expulsion vote last year for participating in a gun control protest on the Statehouse floor, won the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate on Thursday, according to The Associated Press, and will challenge Marsha Blackburn, the Republican incumbent.

Ms. Johnson catapulted to national attention last April as one of the “Tennessee Three,” who led the protest at the State Capitol after a shooter killed three students and three staff members at a Nashville Christian school.

While the Republican supermajority expelled the other two representatives, Justin Jones and Justin J. Pearson, both young Black Democrats, Ms. Johnson, who is white, avoided the same fate by one vote. Both men were soon reinstated, while Ms. Johnson, the only one of the three old enough to run for Senate, was encouraged to run against Ms. Blackburn.

Ms. Johnson easily won her primary on Thursday, The Associated Press said, beating Marquita Bradshaw, an environmental justice activist; Civil Miller-Watkins, a teacher; and Lola Denise Brown, a Democratic activist.

“Tonight, I stand before you ready to work, ready to meet the voters, ready to mobilize voters, and ready to tell Tennesseans the stakes in this election,” Ms. Johnson told supporters gathered in Memphis, including Mr. Pearson. “I have never felt more ready to fight for Tennessee.”

Ms. Blackburn swatted away a long-shot Republican primary challenge from a former Statehouse staff member, Tres Wittum.

Ms. Blackburn, the first woman elected to represent Tennessee in the Senate, is widely favored to keep her seat. A fervent supporter of former President Donald J. Trump, she has gained attention for her aggressive — and at times misleading — questioning of Democratic nominees and hard-line stances .

At the Republican National Convention last month, she confronted Kimberly A. Cheatle, the Secret Service director who has since resigned, over the security failures that led up to an assassination attempt against Mr. Trump. And Ms. Blackburn is the lead Republican author of a sprawling Senate package aimed at protecting teenagers and children online, though it is unclear whether opposition from the tech industry and free speech concerns will prevent it from becoming law.

“I’m going to continue to work hard on the issues Tennesseans care about,” Ms. Blackburn said in a video posted on social media minutes after The Associated Press called the race. She added, “It is time for us to unite — it is time for us to say, let’s be certain that we pass that America First agenda.”

Democrats have charged that Ms. Blackburn’s policy positions — particularly her opposition to abortion rights and tightening gun laws — are too extreme for the state.

Ms. Johnson, a former teacher who first ran for the State Legislature in 2012, has repeatedly tangled with the state’s Republican supermajority. She has traveled across the state in recent weeks in an effort to not only introduce herself to more centrist and conservative voters, but also to galvanize the state’s Democratic minority.