One of the biggest controversies sweeping the United States today is the fight in legalizing same-sex marriage. Some states such as Connecticut in 2008, Vermont in 2009, Massachusettes in 2004, New Hapshire in 2010, New York in 2011, and the District of Columbia in 2010 have come to issue same-sex licenses (HRC, 2011). While others recognize same-sex marriages, Maryland in 2010 and Rhode Island in 2007, civil unions,Delaware and Hawaii in 2012, Illinois in 2011 and New Jersey in 2007, and domestic partnerships, Washington and Nevada in 2009, Oregon in 2008, and California in 2007 (HRC, 2011). However; even though it may seem as “equality” that there are statewide laws ruling in favour of civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, on paper it is far from it. Those who argue against the legalization of same-sex marriage, raise the point that it is unbiblical, against their religion, and that it threatens the sanctity of marriage. Even the former Senate majority leader Bill Frist expresses his opposition to same-sex marriages, “I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament and that should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between what has traditionally in our Western values been defined as between a man and woman. So I would support the amendment” (Associated Press, 2003). In addition, others argue that it weakens traditional family values , and that it can even cause confusion to children about gender roles or even raise the divorce rate. In constrast, the United States of America was founded with the intent to keep the church and state seperate and considering that such few states have legitimately passed laws ruling in favour of same-sex marriage, more so, it is almost impossible to factu... ... middle of paper ... ...reamble). Therefore, no man or woman should fall under descriminations that are based on the religious beliefes mentioned above. Third, in Clause 1 of Article 4 in the Federal Constitution it states that “ The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” With this considered Maryland and Rhode Island should not be the only state to recognize same-sex marriages that have occurred outside of their jurisdiction. www.hrc.org/resources/entry/same-sex-relationship-recognition-laws-state-by-state www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90731,00.html www.nber.org/public_html/confer/2011/HEs11/Francis_mialon_peng.pdf www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0075.pdf www.atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/p/contragaymarria.htm www.civiliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/arguments-against-gay-marriage.htm
The choice of religion belongs solely to the individual and shouldn’t be able to be taken away from a
Throughout the recent history of America, gay marriage has always been an issue. With the different views and morals everyone has on the subject, it makes it hard for individual states to determine what side they should be on. In 1983 a Harvard Law School student, Evan Wolfson, wrote a thesis stating the rule of marriage equality. Justices concluded that gay couples were entitled to the legal benefits of civil marriage; and most crucially in the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, whose favorable ruling, in a suit by lawyer Mary Bonauto and the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocated and Defenders, led to the nation’s first bona fide same-sex marriages…” (“Gay Marriage turns 10 and Credit Should Be Spread around- The Boston Globe). On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriages. In June of 2013, California legalized gay marriages, which helped their large LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) community. (“History and Timeline of the Freedom…”). When this finally happened, it was seen as a great achievement by Karmala Harris, a California Attorney. “This is a profound day in our country, and its just the right thing: ‘Justice is finally being served’” (“Court Gives OK for California Gay Marriages”).
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases it is except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
“ It remains to be noted that none of the great constitutional rights of conscience, however vital to a free society is absolute in character. Thus, while the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion goes a long way, it does not serve to protect acts judged to be morally licentious, such as poly amorous marriages. Children cannot be required to execute the flag salute which is forbidden by religious belief… Similarly freedom of speech, often defended by the courts, does not extend to the seditious utteran...
The constitutional right of gay marriage is a hot topic for debate in the United States. Currently, 37 states have legal gay marriage, while 13 states have banned gay marriage. The two essays, "What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?" by Katha Pollitt and "Gay "Marriage": Societal Suicide" by Charles Colson provide a compare and contrast view of why gay marriage should be legal or not. Pollitt argues that gay marriage is a constitutional human right and that it should be legal, while Colson believes that gay marriage is sacrilegious act that should not be legal in the United States and that “it provides a backdrop for broken families and increases crime rates” (Colson, pg535). Both authors provide examples to support their thesis. Katha Pollitt provides more relevant data to support that gay marriage is a constitutional right and should be enacted as law in our entire country, she has a true libertarian mindset.
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
...ape our ideal vision in America as to citizens being protected by a strong government. The Declaration is our lives every day, it is reality. As American citizens we are a very fortunate to live in a place like America because of all that has been accomplished, the people are happy with the government for securing our rights. In other countries people do not have rights we do, they do not have a say in much. For example, if one says something about the president elsewhere, one might be killed or do time. In the United States, if one says something about the president, not much ca happen because we have a say, unless is a threat. In terms of equality, Muslim religious women do not have equality. Muslims cannot be seen as themselves completely in public. Nobody in this world is perfect. Therefore, everyone should get the same respect as to be equal to one another.
In his article “Sacred Rite or Civil Right?” Howard Moody tackles the controversial issue of the definition of marriage and inclusion of same-sex marriage into that definition. The real issue that takes center stage is the not so clear separation between the church and the state. Moody, an ordained Baptist minister, shares his belief that it’s only a matter of time that civil law is once again redefined and homosexual marriage is recognized just as much as heterosexual marriage. The gay marriage debate he suggests isn’t focused on the relationship between such couples and is more about how to define such unions as a “marriage”. (353)
Sixty years from now, the American people will look back on the 21st century and be appalled at how the people from today allowed their government to make it illegal for certain couples to get married, just as the people of today are disgusted with the ban on marriage between interracial couples before 1967. Being so advanced technologically, it is surprising how America is still so behind on the issue of same-sex marriage. The United States should push aside the religious argument in this debate, and truly separate its church and state as it claims to do so. From its slow beginning to the rapid increase of support in the 70’s, homosexual marriage has been a controversial debate that hopefully will end in the near future.
The ruling of Baehr vs. Lewin was a victory for gay rights activists, hope for other states searching for the same freedom, and disappointment for opponents of same-sex marriage. Yet this victory was short lived (until complete legalization in November 13, 2013) since the state appealed the lower court’s decis...
All men are born free and equal, the right to do anything as long as it does not harm another, the freedom of speech and religion, are just a few of many important rights and responsibilities of citizens.
Furthermore, the word "equal" in section 1 of the 14th amendment implies that everyone should have the right to get married no matter what his or her sexual preference. Marriage is the legal and public documentation of the love and trust two people share for each other. This means that anyone should be able to marry whomever he or she wishes.
Prohibiting same sex marriage is unconstitutional. "The act discriminates on the basis of the sex by making the ability to marry depend on one's gender" (American Civil Liberties Union, p 12). It also disregards the Faith Full and Credit Clause of the constitution. If a gay or lesbian couple gets married in a state where same sex marriage is legal, but then for some reasons decides to move to another state where same sex marriage is prohibited, it would mean that their union would not be recognized.
In conclusion I argue that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it denies homosexuals the many benefits received by heterosexual couples. The right to marriage in the United States has little to do with the religious and spiritual meaning of marriage. It has a lot to do with social justice, extending a civil right to a minority group. This is why I argue for same-sex marriage. The freedom to marry regardless of gender preference should be allowed.
The legality of gay marriage is a hot topic for many reasons. Traditionally marriage has been known as a legal bond between a man and a woman. Times have changed since those days. More and more people are coming out of the closet everyday. There are more gay people today than there ever have been and that number is only increasing. Marriage is a way for two people to show their commitment towards each other, so it should not matter what their gender or sexual orientation is.