Essay on Gay Marriage Is Good For America

In this article, “Kentucky Clerk Ordered to Jail for Refusing to Issue Gay Marriage License” the author James Higdon focuses on the recent topic of gay marriage. Higdon’s story relates to a Kentucky woman named Kim Davis. Davis was arrested September 3, 2015 because she refused to issue marriage license to a gay couple. “Under questioning from her attorney, Davis went on to express her opposition to same-sex marriage, which she said was ‘not of God’ and contrary to natural law and therefore not something that she could condone” (Higdon). This quote shows that Davis refused to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs. Davis’s religious beliefs are so strong that she continued to fight with the law and the court judge

At the time the article was first published, the push for legalizing gay unions was a controversial topic in the USA. The writer, ‘Rev. Louis P. Sheldon was at the time, the chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, a California-based organization of some 32,000 churches’ (p. 1). He was obviously against the idea of accepting gay marriage and sustained that gay relationships are simply ‘unnatural’. Moreover, he stated that nearly 80% of Americans were opposing the legalization of marriage among gay people. Along with the author many people opposed to the idea at that time of his article – But in despite of that, gay marriage was finally legalized in the United States in June 26, 2015 (Wikipedia 2001).

They should have dropped the case when the same-sex marriage was settled by the Supreme Court. The reason why is because they have no legal reason to still be on the case. Paxton is only on the case because of his beliefs. He is also denying a person the estate of their deceased partner which is very wrong. Paxton should have gotten out of the case when same-sex marriage was legalized, he does not have a legitimate reason to still be on the case when it is just a family dispute over the estate. A majority of whites (59%) and Hispanics (56%) favor same-sex marriage, compared with 41% of blacks. Religion continues to be a major factor in attitudes as well. Fully 85% of those who are religiously unaffiliated favor same-sex marriage, as do 62% of white mainline Protestants and 56% of Catholics. Among black Protestants, 33% favor same-sex marriage (57% oppose), and 27% of white evangelical Protestants favor it (70% oppose). Adults in the Silent generation (ages 70 to 87) are the only age group in which significantly more oppose (53%) than favor (39%) gay marriage. Americans who live in states where same-sex marriage has been legalized by the legislature or popular vote are the most likely to favor gays and lesbians marrying (68%); 59% of people in states where a court has legalized the practice favor same-sex marriage, compared with just 43% of those living somewhere where it is not

His goal in writing this is to educate the public of the ongoing struggle of LGBT people. Jost is accredited with writing the “Supreme Court Yearbook," so he is well educated with the law and politics. In this article, Jost mentions how LGBT activists aren’t largely supported by majority of government due to the fact that Republicans control the House of Representatives and the Senate. So, hopes for Congressional support for LGBT rights are very low, and will remain that way for a while into the future. Many politicians have voiced their opinion of the matter of same-sex marriage, including Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida. In his opinion, all couples should be respected, but he also believes there should be a right of religion. Though he did not clarify the meaning of his statement, it can be inferred that he supports LGBT discrimination based on

Chief Justice Roberts made a principal dissent, claiming that in just one day, the court has transformed the societal institution of marriage that has banded humanity together for millennia. Roberts made clear that no consensus is worth a decision he feels completely overstepped the Supreme Court’s constitutional bonds, stating “Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner…but do not celebrate the constitution”. Roberts repeatedly insists that history and tradition must be drawn on to come to a conclusion, and judges ought not to rely on his or her own moral judgement concerning the morality of whether denying the fundamental rights would be unjust in light of the constitution. Although Roberts’ does agree that same-sex couples who have previously challenged state laws excluding them from marriage “make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness” , he ultimately believes that the Constitution cannot decide what is fair and what is just.

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).

The first spark to set flames to the waging war on marriage equality happened on October 15, 1971. In the Supreme Court case of Baker v. Nelson on October 15, 1971, one of three cases brought forth by same-sex couples, Richard Baker and James Richard McConnell were denied a marriage license by a county court clerk in Minnesota in May of 1970 (Minnesota Legislature, 1971, Richard John Baker and Another v. Gerald R. Nelson). The initial trial court dismissed their claim, declaring that the clerk had the power to refuse the right of marriage to gay couples. The couple lost again in the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court followed by confirming the ruling. For the next twenty four years, basic human rights were continuously denied nationwide in cases similar to Baker v. Nelson and in anti-gay attempts to restrict homosexual marriage. Eventually, there showed signs of hope such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in May, 1996 and Massachusetts becoming the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in December, 1996. In relatively recent news, the LGBTQ community celebrated a monumental win as the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage a constitutional right for Americans nationwide. On the 25th of June, 2015, many rejoiced this new ruling. Unfortunately, just as many were disgusted at the new legislation. The topic of marriage equality is a unique controversy due to the fact that it gathers so many strong opinions to the cause from many different walks of life.

Historically, the same sex marriage movement can be traced back to the early 1970’s, when gay rights activists begun the movement by bringing forward three suits in Minnesota, Kentucky, and Washington, but none of the suits were successful (Rosenberg). Following these actions in 1986, the case of Bowers v. Hardwick was brought before the Supreme Court

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights

The massive amount of people who believe and support LGBT should have the same human rights and equality say, “it's only fair they receive the same liberty to love who they love.” (Texas, Democratic Party, 1) Throughout the years, same sex marriage supporters have been increasing; “81% of adults under 30 now support marriage equality.”(Texas Democratic Party, 1). People have been making an effort to fight this case even since the beginning of the gay rights movement in the 1960s-1970s. Even before that though, homosexuals have tried to be seen equal, and of course, have an aspiration to be able to obtain the same rights as everyone else, which is to win over the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed in 1996 by Presidential Clinton to be able to marry the person they love regardless of what their gender

In a remarkable article that appeared in the Washington Post, William J. Bennett argued that recognizing same-sex marriage would be detrimental to the concept of marriage and to the nation. The only thing more remarkable than the logical fallacies relied upon in the article was the fact that the author was the former Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the George H. W. Bush administration.

In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court heard the case Baher vs. Lewin, and decided that Hawaii’s ban on same-sex marriage was not permitted by the state constitution (ABC-Clio). That court transferred the case to a trial court for a final decision. Although the decision, which was to amend the state constitution to “reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples,” wasn’t made until after the Defense of Marriage Act was put into place, many people against same-sex marriage were worried Hawaii would become the first state to legalize gay marriage. Bob Barr, a Republican Georgia Representative, would then introduce the Act in May 1996 (Nelson). The bill passed the House in July of that year and the Senate that September, both with an overwhelming

(2015, May 27). Virtually Every Demographic Group Now Supports Gay Marriage. Nationaljournal.com. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.davenport.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA415210665&v=2.1&u=lom_davenportc&it=r&p=STND&sw=w&asid=e94be71888197bfe314079b2832d8429

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

In their attempt to preserve the institution of marriage, they came with arguments that were backed by research studies, science, health concerns and Christian values, giving them a convincing case that was based on much more than a simple definition of traditional marriage. Furthermore, in their fight against same-sex marriages, demonstrators at the State Capital brought their disagreement with class. They brought passion and discontent, but did so without the use of discrimination, nor was there an indication of homophobic, hate filled threats being shouted against the homosexual community as alleged. If you’ve been led to believe otherwise, be it by an individual or the media,