Defense of Marriage Act is Constitutional
Introduction
The United States Supreme court ruled in Windsor V. United States on June 26, 2013 that the section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that all loving couples that are married and committed to each other deserve legal respect and treatment, which is equal. This ruling shall have an effect on the married same-sex couples, being treated as any other married couple by the federal government. Each one shall be eligible for federal protections and responsibilities that are extended to all other married couples (Gacek, n.d.).
President Obama together with the Department of Justice should have come to a conclusion that it is unconstitutional. In addition, they have concluded that the federal government cannot offer any reasonable legal defense in court. The federal DOMA is a law that defines that marriage should be between one man and one woman for all purposes of federal law. Furthermore, a spouse is a member of the opposite sex only. Marriage should be defined or an assumption that it is a female-male union made by the courts. DOMA was passed into law in response to the Baehr decision in the Baehr v. Lewin [Hawaii] by the US Congress and President Clinton signed it into law. The Congress feared the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause on the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages. The law upholds that every state has its own power to make decisions regarding the rejection or acceptance of any same-sex marriages created in other states. With DOMA made unconstitutional, Congress shall have to defend the law in court for it is not being backed up by the federal government Department of Justice (DOJ) l...
... middle of paper ...
...nton Judicial Appointee: DOMA Is Constitutional. Retrieved From http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/343644/clinton-judicial-appointee-doma-constitutional-ed-whelan
Supreme Court of the United States. (2013). United States of America V. Edith Schlain Windsor and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives. Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/pdfs/no_12-307_rb_blag_merits.pdf
Girgis, S., Anderson, R. T., & George, R. P. (2012). What is marriage?: Man and woman : a defense. New York: Encounter Books.
Perkins, J. (2004). Defense of marriage: Does it need defending? New York: Novinka Books.
Cott, N. F. (2002). Public vows: A history of marriage and the nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clement, P. D. (2013). Is Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional?. Supreme Court Debates, 16(5), 31.
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 expected that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was revealed, the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.
A History of Marriage by Stephanie Coontz speaks of the recent idealization of marriage based solely on love. Coontz doesn’t defame love, but touches on the many profound aspects that have created and bonded marriages through time. While love is still a large aspect Coontz wants us to see that a marriage needs more solid and less fickle aspects than just love.
Such precedent setting decisions are usually derived from the social, economic, political, and legal philosophy of the majority of the Justices who make up the Court, and also represent a segment of the American population at a given time in history. Seldom has a Supreme Court decision sliced so deeply into the basic fabric that composes the tapestry and direction of American law or instigated such profound changes in cherished rights, values, and personal prerogatives of individuals: the right to privacy, the structure of the family, the status of medical technology and its impact upon law and life, and the authority of state governments to protect the lives of their citizens.(3-4)
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.
...r any religious book into the government’s laws. DOMA could be seen as a religious act to prohibit homosexuals the right to marry. Who can think of any reason besides religion why two men can’t get married? Then again, maybe there is an answer of why they can’t get married and why DOMA hasn’t come down under separation of church and state. Growing up each child has a different relationship with their parents. The mother, no matter how feminine or not, nurtures their child and cares deeply for them. The Dad, no matter how masculine or not, fights to protect their child from the nasty people in the world. Without either role a child could become more hardened, with no one to nurture or no one to protect them. People are entitled to their opinions and however one feels will determine if the impact of DOMA and what has since happened is a great one or a horrible one.
Human beings are not isolated individuals. We do not wander through a landscape of trees and dunes alone, reveling in our own thoughts. Rather, we need relationships with other human beings to give us a sense of support and guidance. We are social beings, who need talk and company almost as much as we need food and sleep. We need others so much, that we have developed a custom that will insure company: marriage. Marriage assures each of us of company and association, even if it is not always positive and helpful. Unfortunately, the great majority of marriages are not paragons of support. Instead, they hold danger and barbs for both members. Only the best marriages improve both partners. So when we look at all three of Janie’s marriages, only her marriage to Teacake shows the support, guidance, and love.
"Jane ROE, Et Al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE." LII. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
The Bible which is seen as one of the most sacred text to man has contained in it not only the Ten Commandments, but wedding vows. In those vows couples promise to love, cherish, and honor each other until death does them apart. The irony of women accepting these vows in the nineteenth century is that women are viewed as property and often marry to secure a strong economic future for themselves and their family; love is never taken into consideration or questioned when a viable suitor presents himself to a women. Often times these women do not cherish their husband, and in the case of Edna Pontiellier while seeking freedom from inherited societal expectations and patriarchal control; even honor them. Women are expected to be caretakers of the home, which often time is where they remain confined. They are the quintessential mother and wife and are expected not to challenge that which...
Wilcox, W. (2012). The state of our unions 2012 marriage in America : the President's marriage
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.
Is marriage really important? There is a lot of controversy over marriage and whether it is eminent. Some people believe it is and some people believe it is not. These opposing opinions cause this controversy. “On Not Saying ‘I do’” by Dorian Solot explains that marriage is not needed to sustain a relationship or a necessity to keep it healthy and happy. Solot believes that when a couple gets married things change. In “For Better, For Worse”, Stephanie Coontz expresses that marriage is not what is traditional in society because it has changed and is no longer considered as a dictator for people’s lives. The differences between these two essays are the author’s writing style and ideas.
Morse, Jennifer R. "Marriage & Relationships." The Problem With Living Together. Focus On The Family, 2001. Web. 21 Feb. 2014.
Robson, Ruthann. "The Reader's Companion to U.S. Women's History: Marriage." Houghton Mifflin Study Center. 19 Nov. 2005. http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_022200_marriage.htm.
Bennett, Jessica. "The Case Against Marriage." Newsweek. Newsweek, 11 June 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court came to the conclusion that marriage is a right protected by the U.S. constitution in all 50 states. Prior to their decision, same sex marriage was legal in 37 states, including Washington D.C. Same sex marriage goes against what the bible says. I feel that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs of several Christian.