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.
According to this, it simply tells anyone who says that same-sex marriage violates their religious rights that the Constitutional rights of a citizen will supersede religious rights. Citizens just need to read the Constitution to see that same-sex marriage is not only a civil right but also a Constitutional right. This proves that in accordance with the laws of the United States of America that same-sex marriage is
As time passes, the federal government will come to realize that it is unconstitutional to deny U.S citizens the right to same sex marriage. It is obvious that our founding fathers would agree that same sex marriage is constitutional and that the benefits reserved only for heterosexual marriages is highly unconstitutional. The solution that some states have created for this situation known as domestic unions is more of a setback for homosexuals than progress. The founding fathers of the US Constitution believed in liberty and freedom for all. James Madison was a contemporary of the natural rights theory.
Although justices belong to different parties and they may have views determined by their political beliefs, the role of a justice is to carefully determine and interpret laws based on the Constitution. To do this, they must provide legitimate reason to defend their decisions and therefore, judicial review is beneficial for a successful nation. As a result of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the case and therefore could not issue a writ of mandamus. This is the first instance of judicial review by the Supreme Court. Regarding judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in his opinion that, “It is empha... ... middle of paper ... ...es his point by saying that it does not specify the extent of those powers.
Hodges. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the fourteenth amendment, equal protection under the law, and prohibited state bans on same-sex marriage in the United States, in which according to dissenters of same-sex marriage, will reduce their right to religious freedoms. The change in rulings from the Hobby Lobby case to the Obergefell v. Hodges has brought an increase of intensity to this conflict between the first, and fourteenth amendments, reiterating there is no solution for the turmoil between the first and fourteenth amendments when the Supreme Court opinions wavers. According to David Savage, The Author Of Battles Over Religious Freedom Are Sure To Follow Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, “[t]he close divide among the justices almost ensures that new legal battles lie ahead. This divide reflects the inherent conflict between the first and fourteenth amendment.” The Supreme Court is trying to balance the conflict, however, with an unsuspected outcome—the Religious Freedom Restoration
The first section, gives authority to the states, no state, or the possession of the U.S., should be required to give the effect to any public act. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of the law. The second section, gives a federal definition of marriage as an institution between man and woman, with the word “spouse” and this is referring to a person of the opposite sex. What is the status of DOMA right now? The status of DOMA right now is the U.S. Supreme court has struck down section three of DOMA which prevented the federal government from recognizing marr... ... middle of paper ... ...n the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
This allowed for gay marriage to be legal on a federal level, but not a state level. The reason I believe that gay couples should be allowed to marry is because I believe in equality for all. It is despicable that other human beings should be treated differently simply because their life choices are fundamentally different than ... ... middle of paper ... ...community and the fact that it has already been legalized already show that this is something that is necessary to happen. The fact that court case after court case has overturned other state laws that banned gay marriage and that having laws that restricts freedoms of a specific people goes completely against the ideals that this country were founded upon shows that legalizing gay marriage in Georgia needs to happen soon. Works Cited “Definition of marriage and spouse,” 1 USC 7, Sept. 21 1996, Available from: Office of the Law Revision Counsel, uscode.house.gov; Accessed 4/25/2014 Swaine, John.
Allowing gay marriage would serve to honor the Constitution. The future of this debate will decision any different from what it is today; the Constitution will remain a guideline that inherently insists on equal treatment for all human being especially in democratic society. My intentions in writing this argumentative essay were to dictate that it is that nation 's responsibility to acknowledge all unions, instead discriminating couples on their sex. Homosexuals, who are in love, have the fundamental right to commit to each other and have it legally recognized by the United States government. Remember "love doesn 't have eyes; it doesn 't go by race or gender.
Hodges is more of a recent test of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, having happened around two years ago from now. Some groups of same-sex couples sued Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee’s state agencies “to challenge the constitutionality of those states’ bans on samesex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages.” According to the plaintiffs, the equal protection and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment were violated. There were two questions to ponder. One, “Does the fourteenth amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” Two, “Does the fourteenth amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another
The majority decisions for these cases focused on the individual’s right to procreative freedom, a right which did not depend on the individual’s family status. According to the Harvard Law Review, “the constitutional protection of private, consensual, nonprocrea... ... middle of paper ... ...he Court would likely have found “the use of contraceptives, even within marriage, (has been) condemned historically and therefore (should be) unprotected” (Law Review 14). Relying on American history and tradition, which is filled with prejudice and discrimination, prevented the Court from arriving at a just decision in this case. The decision in Bowers v. Hardwick was a mockery of justice. The majority failed to strike down a law which unfairly targeted homosexuals, but what’s worse, is that the statue in question violated everyone’s right to privacy, not just homosexuals’.