Equal Rights to Marry for Same-Sex Couples

Opponents of gay marriage often use the defense that the cultural traditional definition of marriage needs to be protected, and cannot be altered to include homosexuals. An anti-gay marriage article reads, "Marriage is not created by government. It is older than the Constitution, older than America, older even than the church. It

In the past, there has been proposed amendments, such as the Federal Marriage Amendment, to ensure that marriage is between one man and one woman. However, the amendment was viewed as a way to discriminate same-sex couples and prevent them from getting married. On June 26 of this year, same-sex marriage became legal nationwide prohibiting all states from not allowing same-sex couples to get married. There has been various debates on amending the Constitution to state the rights of marriage within same-sex couples. The Constitution currently does not say anything about morality of marriage, but many people feel that a same-sex marriage amendment should be added to ensure the rights of married homosexuals (huelskamp.house.gov, Marriage Protection

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.

Is it okay to not believe in gay marriage, yet at the same time support the constitutional rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for homosexual couples? Even though most churches' beliefs conflict with marrying same-sex partners, government should not deny a person's right to their happiness; because any person, no matter race, color, sex, religion or sexual orientation, should be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights as Americans to pursue their happiness; and married gay couples should be able to have a spectrum of rights and benefits if their gay partnership is legalized.

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

The United States Constitution protects certain liberties in the Bill of Rights and rights deemed “fundamental” that are “traditionally protected by our society.” (Michael H. v. Gerald D.). The liberty at issue in this case is the right to marry, which has been deemed fundamental by this Court in Loving v. Virginia, where we stated that “[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” (Loving v. Virginia). The petitioners in the case at bar seek that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages be equal to traditional, opposite-sex couples.

The debate on whether the constitution should be changed to allow gays/lesbians legal status, whereby the partners are protected while in the institution of marriage is a heated debated which has been ongoing in many years. There are those states whereby the rights of gays/lesbians to have legal marriages have been recognized, but in most of the states their right to legal marriage have not been recognized. This essay looks at the reasons why the American constitution should be amended to ensure that all states across the United States recognizes the rights of gays/lesbians to have legal marriages. The argument will focus on the impact that lack of legal marriages have on the gay and lesbian partners and the reasons why constitutional amendment can only be the best solution to resolve the issues of the rights for the gay community to a legal marriage.

According to DOMA, “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” (sec 3). Until recently 2013, the US Supreme Court finally delivered the verdict that declared section 3 of the DOMA, which is the rejection of right to gay marriage is unconstitutional (Shapiro 208). In “Gay Marriage Is A Fundamental Right” by Nathan Goetting, “The right to many, and to marry the person of one's choice, is a fundamental right and a necessary aspect of human happiness. This has been an explicitly stated abiding principle since the Court used its power of judicial review to strike down as unconstitutional a legislature's definition of marriage in 1967.” Currently, 17 states in the United States have legalized the right to same sex marriage. The realization of DOMA is unconstitutional has further evidenced that gay marriage is one of the civil right that should not be taken away by the government, and it is an inevitable changes that open doors for equality and equity.

Appeal to Tradition- Historically, marriage has been between one man and one woman, and our forefathers never considered gay marriage should ever be legal. Thus, gay unions should not be afforded the same rights and privileges of traditional marriages. The men who wrote the constitution were great thinkers and it is not a decision made by accident. If, after 200-plus years the other points have stood the test-of-time, so too should their views on marriage.

On November 4, 2008, proposition 8 passed with 52.24% of California voters saying “yes,” and 47.76% saying “no.” Proposition 8, known otherwise as the Eliminating the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry, was one of the biggest propositions to hit the media. It spread like wildfire and was so popular that on June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled against proposition 8 making it legal for same sex marriages to occur in California. The idea of marriage was no longer seen as a man and a woman, but the idea that you can marry the person you love regardless of their sex/gender. According to the Huffington post on the battle against proposition 8, “Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional

The LGBT community has made new laws each day to bring equality to all. “Throughout its, America has symbolized equality of opportunity for people of all races, origins, religions and creeds, serving as a beacon of hope for anyone seeking a better life. However, despite its founding principles of equality and acceptance, the United States also has a long history of denying basic rights to certain people” (LGBT Equality). When the US discriminates against a certain thing people retaliate and rise up and try to make new laws to help their cause. The LGBT community has been striving to bring equality in many ways. The LGBT community has made great strides in gaining equality of same-sex marriage, gay adoption, and transgender equality.

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.

Advice to a U.S. State Senator on whether natural law might determine whether passing a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage is an appropriate legislative act?