Debra Delaet's Argument Against Homosexual Rights

The movement of the gay and lesbian population in the United States is one that has been in progress since the early 1900s, and is still facing overwhelming controversy and backlash today. The push for gay liberation in a country founded on Christian morals and beliefs has subsequently led to struggles over equality of marriage, adoption, jobs, and healthcare. One side of the controversy argues that every individual deserves the same rights, while the opposing mindset argues that being homosexual puts you into a group of people that is different, and will therefore be treated as such.

The United States of America was founded as a secular sanctuary for ideals like freedom, equality, and tolerance – few will argue against that. Over its history American culture has radically evolved as it strived to meet the ideals its nation was based upon, making changes like ending slavery and providing legal equality for women and minorities, changes that at the time seemed absurd but today are unquestionable merits that define what an “American” is. The quest to reach the ultimate utopian society continues today as true Americans fight the evils of ignorance, stubborn bigotry and the fear to change that still manifest themselves in a large portion of U.S. citizens, preventing this nation from moving forward. One of the outstanding minorities still left to be granted the ideals of freedom, equality, and tolerance are homosexuals trying to obtain the right to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, regardless of gender. Same-sex marriages should be recognized in the eyes of the U.S. government in accordance with its responsibility to provide all American citizens equal freedoms.

The history of LGBTQ+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. LGBTQ+ identities that are accepted by people outside that community change with time, as some identities establish themselves as commonplace while others are just being introduced to non-LGBTQ+ people. However, rights and acceptance for the LGBTQ+ community are nearly always tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQ+ rights issues are controversial, everyone deserves to be equally protected under law regardless of sexual orientation. Likewise, the Fourteenth Amendment’s

The controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

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.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court removed the ban on same-sex marriage nationwide. On July 15, 2015, Kenneth Jost published an article named “Will there be more gains after marriage ruling?” In this article, Jost discusses the viewpoints of the general public and argues that there may still be a struggle to gain full rights and respect for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The article covers the reaction of the public on June 26, along with politicians stand-points on the subject, and the Caitlyn Jenner controversy. Jost’s main argument is that LGBT people are not being protected by the government, even though they have gained the right to marry.

The LGBT community in the United States has always had massive difficulty fitting into our society. For many years they put up with constant mistreatment and other forms of abuse coming from the those who do not agree with their lifestyle. They have for long advocated for the acceptance of their existence and punishment for crimes committed against them. One of the hardest battles the community has had to face was the right to marry in a society that still holds the values of a traditional relationship which is between a male and female. The struggle was quite harsh but it all paid off by 2015 when the supreme court granted gay couples the right to marry. This historical decision did not go without outcry and criticisms. Most of the dissatisfaction came from those who hold very religious values and beliefs that claims homosexuality is a sin. Religion has always been a part of the American way of life since the nation's founding and with that homosexuality has been demonized throughout our society. Now that gay couple possess the legal rights to have a marriage license, religious companies and/or stores are now denying service to LGBT couples as they believe it sinful on their behalf to even take part. Many people gay or straight who fought for gay rights believe these is pure discrimination and that stores should not have the right to deny service for any customer for any reason. However, this belief is unconstitutional and goes

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,

Mississippi lawmakers on Tuesday called for the repeal of a controversial new law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay people based on religious objection. Ellen DeGeneres called it "the definition of discrimination," while singer Bryan Adams canceled his upcoming show in the state to show his opposition to the law.” (Reilly, 2016). Misguided people are being driven by the nose by tricky "Christian" pioneers and legislators who have a personal stake in the matter of ensuring that their assemblies and their constituents remain profoundly and honestly perplexed of the myth of the "gay person plan." Know this: If the LGBTQ people group has any sort of motivation of all, it is achieving the same essential human rights that other people appreciates. That is all. That is the plan. Try not to fall for some other clarification of it. Gay people are not after your children. They are not attempting to change over you or change you. They are not worried with being comprehended as much as they are worried with being dealt with like some other person has the privilege to be dealt with. On the off chance that you trust that any gathering

In “Texas clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.” (2015), Lauren Gambino states that Texas clerks can refuse to issue marriage license to same sex couples, they can justify their refusal on the grounds of religious liberty. Gambino supports her claim by providing factual evidence--including quotes from Texas clerks, which makes her more ethical, because she provides a neutral informative article on this matter. Gambino hopes to inform US citizens of what is going on in Texas, following the same sex marriage legalization by the Supreme Court, while enticing anger

The year is 2015 and I can’t imagine not having the freedom I do today. Marriage equality is a very recent topic in history. It wasn’t very long ago that laws prohibited the marriage of same-sex couples. I have decided to investigate the history of marriage equality and the organizations that helped make the dream come true. In order to fully understand the changes that occurred, and to comprehend the level of discrimination that was felt in the homosexual culture, one must first understand the history of the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer) community. The harsh history of the LGBTQ community, and discrimination that was imposed on them and the organizations that strived to advocate for the LGBTQ community on a local, regional and national level is what eventually lead to the Supreme Court ruling on June 26th, 2015, stating that states cannot ban same-sex marriage.

History has an ironic way of repeating itself at times, the phrase “separate but equal” has rang through the ears of black culture millions of times, only for it to resonate itself within same-sex couples again. The debate of Civil Unions vs. Marriage was on the minds of many before 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal nationwide. These Civil Unions that had existed only until recently was just the rationale used over a century ago for the same purposes. Both had the intention of having equality, but through corruption and misunderstanding, it was never fully achieved. Thankfully, just as the African Americans protested for their rights, the LGBT community also followed suit and won their rights, but not after a long

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.

In a hypothetical scenario in which same-sex marriage and religious freedom are brought to a legal confrontation, the constitutional rights of both plaintiffs and defendants bring forth a nationwide debate on civil liberties and rights—yet it is easy to mistake one for the other. In this scenario, after lesbian couples Donna and Theodora married in the state of Massachusetts instead of North Carolina (Theodora’s home state), both decided to move to North Carolina in the city of Clinton where they found jobs to financially support one another. However, when both couples contacted a local bakery shop for a wedding cake, they were denied by the shop’s owner who cited North Carolina’s recently enacted law that allows businesses to refuse the patronage of homosexuals when the business owners themselves have a religious objection to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. When Donna and Theodora tried to hire a photographer for when they planned to recite their wedding vows, the photographer refused—with the issue of religious freedom again been cited in her arguments. Although this initially didn’t come as a surprise to Donna and Theodora, Donna was more concerned about the maid of honor, Bernice, a transgender person being able to use the women’s restroom. Because Bernice was born male, under the rules of House Bill 2—more formally addressed as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (aka “the bathroom bill”)—that would exclude Bernice from using the bathroom of her choice