Dale Krane Analysis

In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).

In recent years, the debate over same-sex marriage has grown into a nationwide controversy, reverberating into the halls of congress, at the white house, in dozens of state and legislature and courtrooms, and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at both the national and state levels. As the debate rages on, the American religious community remains deeply divided over the issue, and over the morality of homosexuality. The debate has grown from an issue that occasionally arose in a few states to a national and even worldwide controversy.

As noted, the technical legal question to be addressed is whether the federal government or individual states have the right to legalize or prohibit same-sex marriage. To claim that this exact question is increasingly a public concern is to understate the issue. It may be ironic but, as the controversy has grown in recent years, there seems to be more of a demand from the society that the issue be settled once and for all, and for that eyes turn to federal authority. This came to a head in the presidential campaigns of 2013, as same-sex marriage became a “hot button” issue actually defining voter sympathies as either liberal or conservative (Levendusky 42). In plain terms, the Mitt Romney campaign directly appealed to conservative populations opposed to, or perceived as opposed to, gay marriage; the Obama reelection efforts not unexpectedly countered this with an appeal to more liberal factions, which typically favor same-sex unions. The differences in approach aside, the clear fact remains that the nation was emphatically looking to its highest leadership to make a decision, which in turn would lead to federal recognition or denial of same-sex marriage.

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

In his book The Hollow Hope, Gerald Rosenberg’s thesis concerning law and social change is that the courts are ineffective in creating significant social reforms. His main claim is that the courts are too weak to overcome their lack of constitutional rights, their apprehension to make unpopular rulings, and their lack of judicial enforcement powers (Rosenberg). In his view, Rosenberg assesses that under the right legal and social conditions these constraints can be overcome, but ultimately he concludes that the courts can only bring about the illusion of change, stating that, “U.S. courts can almost never be effective producers of significant social reform. At best, they can second the social reform acts of the other branches of government” (Rosenberg 422). Regarding same sex marriage, Rosenberg’s assessment is that while proponents of same sex marriage had the necessary elements to produce social reform, they turned to the courts too early and as a result, the litigation campaign resulted in “one step forward, two steps back” (Rosenberg 368).

In the early days of the American government, there was a long struggle between the federalist, and the anti-federalist about the ratification of a constitution for a young nation. During that time, slavery was a source of labor, and commerce for our thirteen states, but this didn’t sit well with these human properties, because they wanted their grievances to be answered. Once it was clear that African-Americans were people who deserve the same rights as others too, it sparked the voices from women who were properties of their spouses. In continuation of all these dilemmas, there was a hidden developing conflict for homosexual rights. The rights that Americans think they are entitled too, must be answered,

As a general rule, constitutional law examination differs depending on the nature of the right that is being asserted in a case. In the Constitution people have various rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Other rights in the Constitution are not presented in the Constitution, but they are arguably stated within its context. In this paper I will agree that the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges was right in affirming the equal rights of same-sex couples based on the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Court’s ruling in this case has an effect on the legal rights of children of same-sex couples, the rights of people who identify as gay, and the states’ sovereign right to enact legislation that defines

In the second edition of The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change? By Gerald N. Rosenberg (2008) is a revised version of the first novel and includes new chapters and introduces the argument of same –sex marriages. Rosenberg develops his study by analyzing the verdicts of a state court of final authority in Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts; these countries ruled that the renunciation of marriage assistance for same-sex couples infringed their individual state constitution. Rosenberg examines the direct and indirect consequences of these decisions and provides counter arguments. Throughout the novel, Rosenberg argues the failure of litigation if the courts abstain from supporting social change, court judgments create a legislative counterattack or overturn the complete constitution amendment. The central theme of the novel is that courts are guarded in their capability to implement social policy. He also explores whether laws efficiently alter a boarder social beliefs, ethics and traditions in society. In order to support his thesis he provides cases studies. The first case is the United States determination to end racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The second case is Roe v. Wade (1973) and other cases where courts can produce major social reform in civil rights, abortion, women’s rights, the environment, reapportionment, criminal rights, and same-sex marriage. Thus, in order to understand Rosenberg’s novel this paper will focus on three

A group of gay couples sued their various relevant state agencies in the states of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and also in Tennessee. The lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of the bans perpetrated by the states on same-sex marriages or the states’ refusal for the recognition of such legal marriages that occurred within their jurisdictions. The plaintiffs in Obergefell v. Hodges argued that the statutes in their states violated the clause of equal protection. It also violated the clause of Due Protection of the fourteenth amendment. One of the plaintiffs brought an issue with the claims of civil rights. In all the circumstances, the trying courts found favour for the plaintiffs. However, the court of appeal for the 6th Circuit reversed the rulings and held that the ban on same-sex marriages by the states never violated the couples’ 14th amendment rights. The following article will, therefore, give a description and summary of the case Obergefell v. Hodges. It will give its current argument and later take a position so as to argue for one side of the case.

A major victory was won by the LGBT community when the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal on June 26th of 2015 across all of the United States. This ruling effectively states that any state-law restricting marriage to male-female is unconstitutional. This had been a fight since the 1970s when the issues of same-sex marriage first began to gain steam. Over the years, various states have legalised same-sex marriage to certain degrees, however it wasn’t until after 3 decades that the issue was finally acknowledged on a national level. This change furthers the ideology of freedom and equality of the american constitution and will invoke the betterment of

Family and marriage has been a hot topic in government recently. With the Supreme Court ruling that gay marriage is legal the value of God is dimensioning even more with the government and society. As time has progressed the government’s view on family and marriage has changed from a commitment before God to merely a legal contract. Legalizing gay marriage and removing God from the union of marriage and family shows how relativism has impacted decisions in the government.

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

The actions of the branches of the American government and their effects on the same-sex marriage. In these paragraphs, I’m going to tell you how these Branches effect the same-sex marriages and why. The reason I picked this topic is of my sexuality. I can relate to this topic only because I want to be in a same-se marriage and I want it to be legalized so I can marry my guy. I want to show how these three branches effects on my daily life, being because of my sexuality and anyone else.

The political aspects of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to federal and government recognized marriages are a very complex issue. There are basically two sides to the political argument of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. On one side are the liberals who feel that marriage is a civil right that should be denied based on the basis of a person's sexual orientation. On the other side you have conservatives who feel that marriage is an institution in which should only constitute one man and one woman. In this report we are going to examine how the issue of same-sex marriages are affecting our current political environment, how politics is affecting the movement for

Same sex- marriage is still the topic of many peoples conversation across the country. Citizens, divided by politic party, are very passionate about how they feel about it. The president didn’t approve of it at first, but now he finally accepts same- sex marriage, the Judicial System uses its power to dictate to the States, forcing them to accept same- sex marriage. Both houses of Congress continue to debate what marriage means.