Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the history of same-sex marriage paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the history of same-sex marriage paper
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a controversial law in the past as it is now in the present. I chose to write about this law because the concept of gay marriage is being liberally accepted today compared to its heavy intolerance in the past. Today, countless couples are trying to marry yet must face obstacles such as DOMA that hinders their freedom to marry. I, myself, is an advocate for same-sex marriage and learning more about DOMA lets me see what these same-sex couples go through. In this paper, I will discuss the origins of the DOMA, what it encompasses, what the effects are today and in the future, how DOMA affects me, and how DOMA affects Guam.
I. The Origins of the Defense of Marriage Act
The historical context of DOMA arose from a Hawaii Supreme Court Case, Baehr vs. Lewin (1993). Nina Baehr sued the state of Hawaii stating that the state’s refusal of giving her and her partner a marriage license was illegal discrimination and unconstitutional. The court saw that case had merit and ruled that the prohibition of same-sex marriage constituted to discrimination based on gender. Under Hawaii’s Equal Rights Amendment, the state would need to exhibit a compelling state interest in order to ban same-sex marriage. The case was remanded to a lower court, which declared that Hawaii must permit same-sex marriages because the state failed to exhibit that its ban on such marriages gathered a compelling state interest.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...NSE OF MARRIAGE ACT. http://www.law.fsu.edu/ journals/lawreview/frames/252/kanofram.html (accessed November 12, 2013).
"Frequently Asked Questions: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)." GLAAD: Leading the conversation for LGBT equality. http://www.glaad.org/marriage/doma (accessed November 10, 2013).
"Respect for Marriage Act." Human Rights Campaign. http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legisla tion/federal-legislation/respect-for-marriage-act (accessed November 22, 2013).
"The Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the Wake of Romer v. Evans ." New England Law Boston. http://www.nesl.edu/userfiles/file/lawreview/vol32/1/robb. htm (accessed November 12, 2013).
Thompson, T. "Marriage Equality: Ramifications of the Supreme Court's DOMA Decision" SHRM Guam Chapter. http://guam.shrm.org/sites/guam.shrm.org/files/Todd% 20Thompson.pdf (accessed November 22, 2013)
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
In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the court determined gay marriage to be a constitutional right, striking down several dozen state laws against SSM. While there has been some residual pushback against this decision, overall there has been broad complacence due to a high level of public support for the decision. Little scholarship has been done on how this decision has been implemented because the discussion was made so recently, but some measures show that “99.87 percent of the U.S. population [lives] in a county where same-sex marriage licenses are available” ("Local Government Responses to Obergefell v. Hodges." n.d.). While there are some pockets of resistance it is clear that there is broad local compliance with this decision, likely because of its broad popularity. Instances in which local bodies choose to disregard the Obergefell decision are highly publicized, and generally receive a great deal of public criticism. Thus, the SSM marriage example has fulfilled the two conditions for successful policy, as interest groups were able to use the courts to accomplish a set of aims, and local support has allowed for the implementation of the policy. While there has been some pushback along the way, this pushback has only served to further raise awareness of issue in the minds of the American people, and helped this cause gain
The supreme court case of Obergefell v. Hodges is one huge reason why we have same-sex marriage as of today. Richard Hodges is the defendant while James Obergefell is the plaintiff. As a result of this case, states are unable to pass laws that limit marriage of same-sex couples. It requires all states to license marriages between these couples, and makes states recognise marriages made outside of said states. Before this case, there were several other cases that supported similar, but not exact situations, which will be briefly covered in this essay. However, the Obergefell v. Hodges case is what officially made same-sex marriage undeniable by all states in the union.
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.
The U.S. has recognized marriage as a basic human right by many court cases including Loving v Virginia. Since protecting the marriage of a black-Cherokee woman and a white man, the case has also helped support the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states. This is important because it creates a more united America by knocking down social constraints that disallowed the 5-10% of America identified as homosexual from being married. In the same way as blacks were not allowed to vote, gay couples were not allowed to marry. The legalization of same-sex marriage is helping bridge the split in social order of America by not outlawing same-sex couples for being “immoral” and implying the couples are less-deserving of marriage than a heterosexual relationship. The change of expanding the 14th amendment’s meaning of equal protection of rights for all citizens, in this case for marriage, is helping people treat each other as equivalent and allowing the country to take another step towards liberty and justice for
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.
The Supreme Court has resolved, by a vote of five to four that the "Constitution provided no fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy." (Bowers v. Hardwick) This paper will show that the analysis behind the Bowers v. Hardwick decision was flawed and limited in scope. I believe that the government does not have the right to prohibit homosexual or heterosexual consensual sodomy. Anti-sodomy laws violate the right to privacy, equal protection, and provide no reasonable compelling state interest for these violations.
Goldberg, N. (2010). Gay families and the court: The quest for equal rights. Journal of Family
Challenges have beenmade on restrictions of same sex marriages as well as restrictions on adoption by a homosexual couple.Constitutional arguments such as ...
Same-sex has been a trending topic for the past few decades. During this time frame, the support of same sex-marriage has risen to 53 percent. Although this is majority, the United States still struggles to find where it stands on same-sex marriage. An important case that shows the injustice treatment same-sex marriage couples go through is found in United States v. Windsor. United States v. Windsor is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of “marriage” and “spouse” to affect only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) argued that in doing so “disparages and injures those whom the State by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”
“A Right to Marry? Same-sex Marriage and Constitutional Law | Dissent Magazine.” Dissent Magazine. Martha Nussbaum, 8 June 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.
Eckholm, E. (2014, February 4). Arguments Heard in Federal Challenge of Virginia’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban. The New
Same-sex marriage inequality is an issue that has been troubling American society since the birth of our country. More recently, the United States Supreme Court has tackled some frequently raised arguments that deal with same-sex marriage and our constitutional rights. In the case US vs. Windsor, the legal question: “Does the Defense of Marriage Act [...] deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law?” The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman”. The ultimate ruling of the case US v. Windsor declared that Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The social and economic effects of the decision was not universal in effect, and unfortunately, since states retain power to allow or deny same-sex marriages, over nine-million Americans are still being stripped of their rights.
America is a country known for its freedom, yet people are told who they can and cannot marry. According to Kim Richards a case in Hawaii in 1993 where judges said the state’s constitution required a good reason not to give gay’s equal marriage rights. Congress was pushed to pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevented homosexuals who were allowed to marry from receiving the usual benefits of marriage, like taxes and retirement. In response states have made their stand on domestic partnerships and civil unions. DOMA was passed out of fear that a lawsuit filed in Hawaii would make them allow same sex marriage. The congress did not want to allow same sex couples the same benefits heterosexual couples receive while legally married (4-6). Opponents of DOMA claims it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. By 2002, thirty-six states banned same-sex marriage or recognizing of same-sex marriage formed in other states (Richards 4-6). Benjamin Wittes says the uproar began in 1991 when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and liberals became upset claiming it was a contradiction to our free country (46-48). Dayton says Massachusetts was the first state to sign the bill to allow marriage equality in their state. While republican opponents win the legislative fight with twenty-one states denying marriage equality while just ten have granted the rights to homosexual couples. Polls have shown the majority of America, even including one of our most liberal states, California, remains against gay marriage. After the bill passing in Massachusetts in 2003, thirteen states passed anti-gay-marriage initiatives. Gay right activists are in hopes that states will not follow (...
In the California elections of November 2008, ballot initiative Proposition 8 was passed. This California state constitutional amendment stated, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This proposition did not affect the state’s same sex marriages or domestic partnerships performed before November 5, 2008 (Martin). It wasn’t long before the state started experiencing arguments based on the validity of Proposition 8. Two same-sex couples responded to the proposition, which eventually led to the well-recognized case Hollingsworth v. Perry (formally known as Hollingsworth v. Perry).