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.

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

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

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

Elizabeth Schroeder’s book, Taking Sides, looks at opposing views on controversial issues, one of which is legalizing same-sex marriage. In their article, “Talking About the Freedom to Marry: Why Same-Sex Couples Should Have Equality in Marriage,” the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund supports same-sex marriage. An opposing view, is given by Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor. In his article, “The 28th Amendment: It Is Time to Protect Marriage, and Democracy, in America,” he explains why he is against same-sex marriage.

Nevertheless, it has also been noticed that with the passage of time increasing number of people are supporting the legalization of gay marriage at a progressive and noticeable speed. In addition, records expose the fact that more or less fifty percent of the US population are in favor to legally authorize the gay marriage with equal rights that are provided to couples of traditional marriages. The proponents have added various arguments to support their perspectives that are based on civil rights of the gay community, medical grounds and so forth. While on the other side of the spectrum, the opponents have also provided their basis for arguments of disagreement on parenting concerns, religious concerns and many other intellectual perceptions (Wolfson 2004).

The fight to legalize same-sex marriage has been a long, dramatic fight that has taken place over the past several decades. It is believed to have emerged during the 1960’s counterculture movement. Since then Americans have used the right to petition (216) and the right to assemble (216) as well as more serious methods to push for equality for persons identifying as homosexuals. In 1972, in the case of Richard John Baker v. Gerald

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