Arguments Against Gay Marriage

In The Gay Marriage Case, Obergefell v Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decided that a state may not prohibit same-sex marriage. Instead, it emphasized that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to the gay society through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States of America Constitution. The involved decision maker in the case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who gave four primary reasons for his decision.

For centuries same sex marriage has been a dispute, especially in Texas because of how powerfully Texas believes in the bible and how extremely “old fashioned” it is. The debate has been over LGBT equality, just like the black civil rights movement and the women’s movement in the 1960’s. Due to the traditional and common law, Texas does not allow same sex marriage. Actually, the state banned same sex marriage a decade ago or more. The issue was during the 2004 presidential election when Missouri and Louisiana voters approved same sex marriage and eleven states placed amendments. Everyone held their word and continued to protect the laws of Texas. The constitutional amendments that banned same sex marriage well-defined marriage as a union between

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

Facts: In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the California Constitution. In response, California voters passed Proposition 8, amending the State Constitution such that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.” The California Supreme Court held that Proposition 8 was properly enacted under state law. Respondents (Perry et al.) are two same sex couples who wish to marry, and filed suit to challenge Proposition 8 in Federal Court. The suit named various state officials as defendants, yet they did not defend nor appeal any subsequent ruling in court. The federal district court allowed the official proponents (Hollingsworth et al.) of the Proposition to intervene

The Constitution of the United States does not define what marriage is, thus supporters of this act believe that each state should have the choice whether to recognize marriage between same-sex couples. Furthermore, in the tenth amendment it states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved

Proposition 8 was placed on a ballot in California which made same- sex marriage illegal, and was also deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Once the elected officials of California chose not to defend Proposition 8 once it was deemed unconstitutional the case should have been dismissed, and the petitioners shouldn’t have been allowed standing for appeal. DOMA was purposed that if States recognized same- sex marriages they were to be classified as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law. The definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a religious ideology. To deny a person their right as a citizen of the United States of America to marry whomever they choose is illegal, and the Courts have agreed. Since the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the decision in the Loving v. Virginia (1958) which deemed the laws of banning interracial marriages unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment. Justice Earl Warren noted “Under the Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, the person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.” This has opened up many discussions that because the ban of interracial marriages was deemed unconstitutional the laws that marriage is only between a man and a woman is a gendered based classification. Restricting marriage on the foundation of a person’s gender is just as unconstitutional as laws restricting marriage on the basis of a person’s

Legislatures from Arkansas and Oklahoma banned gay and lesbians from being able to teach at schools only because they were gay and lesbian and did not hold up to the standards of those legislatures. Not only was it Arkansas and Oklahoma that decided to ban them but the senator who had an ambition to become governor of California thought that he could pass a campaign that also withheld the rights to gays and lesbians from also teaching at the schools of many children in schools. It had turned out that he was in the lead of winning the most votes and was going to actually win. But with the help of many Republicans and Democrats that were against the campaign for the gay and lesbian rights, thought that it was wrong and were very hesitant on trying to stop it. Many conservatives turned to get help from former governor Ronald Reagan who was applying to become president. Ronald Reagan was very much against the thought of that and had advocated against that campaign although many politicians had told him that going against the governor of California might be suicidal, he still wanted to go against

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in the majority opinion: "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them." Many conservatives are completely against gay marriage and they have stated that they will fight to have the Supreme Court ruling overturned.

On June 4, 2008, the plaintiffs in this case include fifteen same-sex couples who wish to marry in California and support groups for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Californians. They were denied many times; however, now before the California Supreme Court, they argue that “California has long led the nation in recognizing that constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection, privacy, due process and freedom of association and expression require that lesbian and gay people, like all people, be treated fairly under the law.” Nonetheless these protections, California has denied same-sex couples the right to marry. That denial, they argue, violates the California Constitution.

The argument brought before the Supreme Court was to eliminate the ban on same sex marriage that was still held by thirteen states. This was done as part of a lawsuit called Obergefell versus Hodges. Court documents outline that, “14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition.” (United States Court of Appeals)

They should have dropped the case when the same-sex marriage was settled by the Supreme Court. The reason why is because they have no legal reason to still be on the case. Paxton is only on the case because of his beliefs. He is also denying a person the estate of their deceased partner which is very wrong. Paxton should have gotten out of the case when same-sex marriage was legalized, he does not have a legitimate reason to still be on the case when it is just a family dispute over the estate. A majority of whites (59%) and Hispanics (56%) favor same-sex marriage, compared with 41% of blacks. Religion continues to be a major factor in attitudes as well. Fully 85% of those who are religiously unaffiliated favor same-sex marriage, as do 62% of white mainline Protestants and 56% of Catholics. Among black Protestants, 33% favor same-sex marriage (57% oppose), and 27% of white evangelical Protestants favor it (70% oppose). Adults in the Silent generation (ages 70 to 87) are the only age group in which significantly more oppose (53%) than favor (39%) gay marriage. Americans who live in states where same-sex marriage has been legalized by the legislature or popular vote are the most likely to favor gays and lesbians marrying (68%); 59% of people in states where a court has legalized the practice favor same-sex marriage, compared with just 43% of those living somewhere where it is not

Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges addressed same-sex marriage. The court ruled 5-4 that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed to same-sex couples by the equal protection clause and the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Proposition 2 is a violation of the equal protection clause and denies the liberty of same-sex couples the right to marry and it should be deleted from the Texas Constitution for that reason. Texas recognizes marriage licenses from other states for heterosexual couples and ought to for same-sex marriage licenses since the U.S. Constitution has ruled them to be constitutional. Churches and private organizations have the right to their religious beliefs. Government institutions must follow the law and should not deny a person their fundamental right of

There are many controversies surrounding today's world, such as abortion, animal testing, and social reform issues. It seems that no one can come to a common agreement on the legitimacy of these topics. Personal characteristics, such as upbringing, culture, religion and ethnicity, all play a role in determining one's feelings on a given controversial issue. However, one of the most protested and discussed issues in current political debate is same-sex marriage. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, only hard pressed arguments expressing speculation regarding supposed outcomes, benefits and possible tribulations that would come along with the endorsement of gay marriage. Such ideas are shown

Supporters of Proposition 22 say it advocates not prejudice or discrimination just merely closing a "legal loophole". Although the main point of the proposition does ensures that gay and lesbian marriages are not recognized in California if couples decide to get married in another state.

People are born homosexual. If you are homosexual you cannot get married. That idea is ridiculous. On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Marriage is defined as a sacred bond of love between two people. Gay people also feel love therefore, they should be allowed the same rights as everyone else in this country. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation. The only thing that should matter in marriage is love and denying them this is a violation of religious freedom.