Compare and Contrast essay on equal rights
"This type of legal marriage must be forbidden because natural instinct revolts it as wrong"
Throughout the history of the United States, there has been a class system that tried to define the people who lived here. The people who started this system gave large rights to those who would benefit from it, while at the same time restrict those they deemed unworthy of such privilege. In the beginning this burden fell mainly on the slaves who built the nation, and the woman who maintained the families. This class of human was lower than the superior white male and therefore could not think freely for themselves. A result of this there was a barring of marriage between two different races. Now in …show more content…
It is an excuse that has been used to no avail in the past, and will prove to be inferior now as well. It goes by simple logic that if natural instinct found it wrong, then those people wouldn't feel so in love as to get married in the first place. But we find that as time passes, what the higher class said was an anomaly, is really a sizable part of the population. But that was never really the problem at all. It's all about the power they want to wield over those they feel are below them. The few who control the majority want to keep it that way, much like the masters controlling their slaves. "The law concerning marriage is to be construed and understood in relation to those persons only to whom that law relates and not a class of persons clearly not within the idea of legislation when contemplating the subject of marriage". This quote is from a Virginia judge which was hearing the challenge to the state's ban interracial marriage. This in a nutshell is how they perceive themselves and what they label as inferior classes of humans. Those with the power feel compelled to do things to try and control the masses for which they are supposed to look after. This quote also shows how they see a real difference between the elite and everyone else. This master-slave construct that has been built, has been modified throughout time. This
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
What could be more important than the equality of rights for all American citizens? Women have tried without success for 80 years to be acknowledged as equals in our Constitution through an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Currently there is nothing in the United States Constitution that guarantees a woman the same rights as a man. The only equality women have with men is the right to vote. In order to protect women’s rights on the same level as men, I am in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution today.
This is not an easy motion to debate on. Thus, this piece of writing will mention, discuss and bring forward the irrationality of choosing either freedom over equality or visa versa, without having a harmonious counterbalance between the two factors, implemented by a regulatory body. It will also include examples of countries which "total freedom" or "total equality" is in practice, where the search for total freedom led to total anarchy, or the pursuit for total equality curtailed the freedom in all areas of life. This short writing will be concluded with a personal view.
Equality is something Americans strive to provide and maintain. It has become an integral and necessary part of our mosaic culture. Even now to the point that when people think of America, they naturally think of freedom and equality. People of many different races, disabilities and creeds have come to the United States seeking the impartiality upon which this country was founded. The institutions of this country have relied upon it, just as it was the created by the events in the laying of moral foundations. The expression of America's citizens plays an extremely significant role in the history of equality in American society. In the pursuit of equality and the "American Dream," people have authored inspiring
”since the beginning of civilization, in every known society, governments have recognized a marriage between a man and a woman because it provides the next generation outstanding citizens and is the only means of melding two sexes into a stronger and more complete whole” (Kaufman 164).
As it was in the past history, today’s denial of the freedom to marry is part of establishing a larger and oppressive social vision by the government that encompasses individual ideologies such as Biblical values. In 2004 Liberal senator Guy Barnett petitioned the
Likewise, the rules regarding interracial marriages stemmed from slavery as well. The book, Virginia Hasn't Always Been for Lovers: Interracial Marriage Bans and the Case of Richard and Mildred Loving, discusses the landmark legal case Loving v Virginia. As a bit of history, the book says, “In the 1600s… to ensure that the line between master and slave would be indelible, the colonists enacted a number of laws. Not least among them were the regulations that prohibited interracial marriage” (Newbeck, 23). So, the laws that were put into place regarding interracial marriages were enacted in order to maintain the power dynamic between black and white people. There was no other logical reason why the ban was in place, other than to continue to oppress the black community and keep them from attaining power and status within the
After reading the article called, “What is Marriage For?” by E.J. Graff I completely agree with the article and I also relate, as well. The reason is I’m part of the LGBTQ community and from the moment I realized I was, I knew when I decided to get married it would be a huge obstacle because I would have to leave the state I was born and raised in which is North Carolina. The reason why I had to leave would be before the law was made in North Carolina same sex marriage wasn’t allowed but only few states allowed it. So, I was truly happy when it was legalized. In addition, in some of the states the only way I could really get married is by civil union which has far less benefits when compared to actual marriage. In the article, it even talks about some of the stories that same sex couples had to deal with the
Democracy stresses the equality of all individuals and insists that all men are created equal. Democracy does not persist on an equality of condition for all people or argue that all persons have a right to an equal share of worldly goods. Rather, its concept of equality insists that all are entitled to equality of opportunity and equality before the law. The democratic concept of equality holds that no person should be held back for any such arbitrary reasons as those based on race, color, religion, or gender. This concept of equality holds that each person must be free to develop himself or herself as fully as he or she can or cares to and that each person should be treated as the equal of all other persons by the law. We have come
The struggle for equal rights has been an ongoing issue in the United States. For most of the twentieth century Americans worked toward equality. Through demonstrations, protests, riots, and parades citizens have made demands and voiced their concerns for equal rights. For the first time minority groups were banding together to achieve the American dream of liberty and justice for all. Whether it was equality for women, politics, minorities, or the economy the battle was usually well worth the outcome. I have chosen articles that discuss some of the struggles, voyages, and triumphs that have occurred. The people discussed in the following articles represent only a portion of those who suffered.
Sec. 3 Equal Rights is a civil liberty. The third section of the Texas Constitution is based on equal protection against government discrimination among men (sex, race, color, creed or national origin). In this case the government cannot take away citizens’ rights. The first amendment of the Bills of Rights gives people the right to practice any religion they chose to and government is prohibit to interfere in a person’s beliefs. In past court cases that freedom of religion was addressed dealing with the exclusion of prayers in public schools, the prohibition of polygamy, and the limitation of the use of drugs or snakes in religious rituals.
Abortion is not a decision to be taken lightly. It is not a decision that the mother should make on her on either. Abortion should be a mutual decision between both parents. It should only be the mother’s choice if the father is not willing to care for the baby. It takes both a man and woman to create a child; therefor it should take both a man and a woman to make the decision to abort their child. After all a child is no more the mother’s than it is the father’s.
We are all born the same way: as humans, and therefore deserve the same rights and acceptance as long as we all follow the laws and comply with the norms set to protect all individuals. But throughout history certain groups of people have faced discrimination, segregation, and injustice because they are of a specific race, skin color and/or culture that some of us consider to be part of a lower category of human beings, as well as the fact of holding different beliefs and ideals along with preferences when it comes to things such as gender and choice of lifestyle. My only wonder is how an individual or a society as a whole reaches the point of producing enmity towards others who do not hold the same sexual orientation as they do and how
The United States is a country built on a number of ideals and institutions. The moral structure of many Americans today was developed by our ancestors and the founders of this nation through the institutions that were a part of their lives. Family, religion, marriage, equality, and justice are just a few examples of the important components that provide a moral basis for our country. If any of these elements were to become too mutated, the effects on society could be devastating. Right now in the United States, one of these building blocks of society is being threatened by the possibility of a negative transformation. The building block of marriage as the sacred
Nowadays, marriage is completely elective. Now we have contraception. Today, marriage is a lifestyle choice (Rauch, J. 2004). The nuclear family is no longer the “norm”. It’s now a reality that there are heterosexuals who are not getting married or not staying married, as well as roughly half of all marriages ending in divorce. With marriage in a decline, one could rationally argue that two people wanting to enter into matrimony, to make an oath, not only to themselves, but to the community, the state, and basically the whole world, should be encouraged. The institution of marriage benefits society, giving strength to families and communities as a whole. Furthermore, the state has a variety of interest in promoting marriage, it promotes stability for adults and children and helps individuals lead happier and more productive lives (Strasser, P. M., 1999).