For Gay Marriage

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).

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 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.

Hodges concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington Post)”. However, the majority opinion went further to find that “the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause have stretched to certain personal choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy, including their intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (Washington Post)”. Using this idea, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples. The ruling has helped gay rights advocates fight more than a hundred and fifteen pieces of legislation that were introduced in state legislatures that were targeting gay people. The majority opinion agreed that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change. “In addition to clearing the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, Friday’s decision may help end discrimination against gays and lesbians in other matters, such as adoption and custody rights, legal experts say (LATimes)”. Gay couples can now have no problem matters when wanting to start a family because of the great decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly twelve years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.“In all his decisions Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes (NYTimes)”. Kennedy makes a great point that the generations before wrote and ratified the Bill

Margaret Marshall the chief Juice of the supreme Judicial Court argues marriage is a vital institution, the commitment should be between two people who offer mutual support to children, and to bring stability to our society. Marriage provides legal, financial, and social benefits. Which leads to legal, social, and financial obligations. The department of health states the purpose of marriage is to have children, the state is only interested if children are involved. She believes the court is downgrading marriage gay marriage for no rational reason. The responses from the court could prevent children with homosexual parents from enjoying a stable family structure; it does not make sense to penalize children because of parent’s sexual orientation. Marshall provides three rational reasons that the Massachusetts government agreed on, but does not provide a sensible foundation. The three reasons provided are guaranteeing the best setting for child bearing, providing a favorable setting for procreation, but preserving the unusual state and private financial resources. The law on public marriage does not give rights to homosexual couples over heterosexual, or other ways of bearing couples. The point is most heterosexuals couples do not produce off spring, and fertility is not required to get married. The second reason presented by Marshalls is there is not proof that shows homosexual couples are better at raising children, but there is a possibility that heterosexual couples are

Debates about gay marriage continue to simmer within American public discourse, though much of the more heated rhetoric has calmed since the earliest efforts to legalize same-sex marriage succeeded in numerous states. These debates have spanned many topics, ranging from religion to politics and beyond. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay and self-described conservative political commentator, addressed one angle of the issue in his July 19, 2011 Newsweek Magazine article “Why Gay Marriage is Good for America.” Through a mixture of personal reflection, social commentary, and political argumentation, Sullivan’s article is less a defense of gay marriage than it is a defense of the idea that gay marriage is compatible with conservative political values. Although Sullivan makes a good case for his position in the article, his argument is ultimately under-developed; the lengthy personal reflections serve to reinforce a relatively minor point in the context of the larger argument, shifting focus away from the more relevant portions of the argument.

A metamorphosis in how the American judicial system perceives same-sex marriage, has developed over the past forty years. In October, 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

In Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide we are able to see the slow progression of one of the most debated issues ever presented. The topic of gay marriage seemed to linger in every United States court room,

Interestingly, a recent case has further infringed upon the ability of gay partners to adopt a child in their marriage, thus highlighting the precarious legal status of a gay parent. In the case of Amalia C. and Melissa M., “Brooklyn Surrogate’s Court judge, Margarita López Torres, ruled on Jan. 6 that because New York State had enacted same-sex marriage in 2011 and allowed both women to be listed on the boy’s birth certificate, Amalia was already the child’s parent and could not adopt him.” (McKinley) This ruling has been troubling to gay rights advocates “because the presumption of parentage may not be respected if they leave the state,” according to Susan Sommer, a lawyer with the Lambda Legal Defense Fund (McKinley). Judge Torres, however, has stated openly that her reason for the ruling was because it places gay marriage on a separate footing from traditional marriage and while she is sensitive to the needs of those whose marriages may not be recognized in another state, she must abide by the laws of New York, which do not allow a heterosexual spouse to adopt a stepchild (McKinley).

The legalization of gay marriage has been a controversial issue in many state courts since the mid 1970s. Gay marriage scares many people because it strays from the norms of heterosexual relationships. Traditional American ideals have become a part of culture and society that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, or race, or gender, expect to have as a basic human rights. Several times in history these have been identified as inalienable rights. One of the expected rights of many American citizens is the right to choose who they love, who they marry, and how they live their day to day life. When heterosexual Americans were introduced to the idea of same sex marriage, they became afraid that it would “taint the minds of the young members of the community,” since homosexualty was and still is frowned upon in the community. Thus, the homosexual community’s opportunity to freely choose how to live their life is taken

So many people in America and around the world are against Gay Marriage and Gay Rights in general. Why can’t the LGBT community feel comfortable with who they are? Also, why can’t people around the world be happy for them? Why is being gay wrong if it’s something that makes that person happy? It upsets me how much cruelty there is around us, especially with people who want to love others of the same gender as them. Honestly if someone is a part of the LGBT community it is perfectly fine in my opinion. If you judge a person for being themselves before getting to know them first, then don’t get mad if decides to judge you. Everyone should be able to live their lives the way they what to instead of worrying what people think of you and what they might call you.

The proposed legalization of same-sex marriage is one of the most significant issues in contemporary American family law. As a heavily campaigned development currently discussed in law assessment; these extremely confrontational and debatable political questions are facing present day American courts. If same-sex marriage is legalized, its affect on the parents, children, same sex couples, families, and the social and political world will be astronomical. The arguments surrounding the issue though confrontational nonetheless are easily seen from a wide array of perspectives. One of the perspectives states that marriage is a promise to a spouse to stay loyal and faithful in all

One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and

By deconstructing the common comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage, she intends to defend her view that interracial marriage is not a slippery slope decision that will roll down hill in an out of control manner and head for the worst like, she claims, same-sex marriage will. Opposing Barber’s views, Quindlen wrote an essay in 2008 entitled: “The Loving Decision” where she sets forth her support for same-sex marriage by constructing a comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. She uses this comparison to suggest that same-sex marriage will, too, be validated by the courts because “the world only spins forward” (258). Even though Barber and Quindlen stand on opposite sides of the debate with views clashing on fundamental concepts like the meaning of marriage, the nature of homosexuality, and the applicability of the Loving v. Virginia court case to the issue, in various areas the two authors have common ground.