Rev. Nancy Petty from North Carolina views same-sex marriage as positive as it presents America as being an 'accepting, tolerant, diverse community', which is exactly what America should be with its complete diversity.
Thirty-two of the fifty states now allow same-sex marriages to take place, which is a large step considering it was only just over ten years ago that same-sex couples weren't allowed to get married. The first state to allow this kind of union was Massachusetts on May 17 2004, almost ten and a half years ago. The fact that now a majority of states allow this form of marriage just shows how American citizens are exercising the first amendment of the Bill of Rights and using it to their advantage to strive towards equality in their country.
'It's confirming that our relationship has the same worth and dignity as any loving couple.' Kate Burns statement seems to epitomise the idea of equality as in her opinion all love should be considered the same.
Brian Silva, Executive Director, Marriage Equality USA, speaks of how while there are still states that do not allow this union, there are people that are being denied social security, access to state benefits and all the protections that come with marriage which directly affects their liberty. There should be no reason for people who want to get married to be stopped and denied access to the freedoms and protection that they, as American citizens, should be entitled to despite the sex of the person they want to marry.
Same-sex marriage is a controversial topic in America, with Miss California stating in 2009 that, in response to her opinion of gay marriage, 'in [her] country and in [her] family [she] think[s] that [she] believe[s] that a marriage should be between a man and a woman'. This answer was received with great controversy, when she was exercising her freedom of speech that she as an American is entitled to, as a majority of American citizens are fighting towards equality and as it was banned in California at that time, she was completely within her rights to voice her own opinion. Could freedom of speech therefore only be valid when you are agreeing with a majority of the 'free' voices?