Gay Rights In The 1950's

The movement of the gay and lesbian population in the United States is one that has been in progress since the early 1900s, and is still facing overwhelming controversy and backlash today. The push for gay liberation in a country founded on Christian morals and beliefs has subsequently led to struggles over equality of marriage, adoption, jobs, and healthcare. One side of the controversy argues that every individual deserves the same rights, while the opposing mindset argues that being homosexual puts you into a group of people that is different, and will therefore be treated as such.

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,

This act was passed to define and protect the institution of marriage which is supposed to be “between a man and a woman”. As a tactic, the state of Vermont promoted same sex marriages by labeling them as “civil unions” (Schowengerdt, 2002). The state of Vermont felt civil unions would provide gays and lesbians with the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples (Stewart, 2004). In 1998, Hawaii’s stated legislation implemented the DOMA amendment that altered the state’s constitution and rejected same sex marriages (Schowengerdt, 2002). Between 1995 and 2000, 28 states passed laws preventing the recognition of same sex marriages (Schowengert, 2002). The purpose of the DOMA was to prevent gays and lesbians from “exporting same sex marriages to other states” (Finnis, 1997). A Florida Federal Judge denied two women recognition of their marriage which took place in Massachusetts. As a result of this denial, attemtps were made to force other states and the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in states where it is legal (Stewart, 2003).

Lawrence v. Texas had an impact on the government in two ways. First, the ruling stated  that private and consensual homosexual sex is the right to liberty and preserved by the Constitution. Second, Lawrence held that "fundamental rights" are very broad concepts of liberty under numerous and different activities may be kept safe.

The advancement of the Fourteenth Amendment, as indicated by Eric Foner in “Our Living Constitution”, speaks on how to concede a protected right to security and to keep the administration from forcing on that privilege is the foundation to this decision. Granting without acknowledging that society has considered same sex relations as immoral it does not follow that this is a sufficient

The government, knowing very little about people and hardly any evidence would take anyone they thought was suspicious of anything odd for questioning and if they were suspected of homosexuality they would be fired right away. The government thought people who were gay were disloyal to the United States and made it so gay and lesbian people were without jobs in the state departments, which later started the Gay Rights Movement and till this day is still a very controversial topic. Not so much within employment in government jobs but more of people not being able to love and marry the people they please. Any person who was thought to be gay or lesbian were perceived as a security risk because they were thought of as disloyal to the United States and were discriminated against. People had a hard time distinguishing between political disloyalty and security risk.

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.

1951, a book was written by Donald Webster Cory called “Homosexuality in America.” This took a stance for GLBT community to be deemed a minority group who should be afforded same civil rights as everyone else.

One of the compelling viewpoints that were raised in the discussion was raising difficulties with services. If I was supporting the government this would be a beneficiary at the federal level. From the government’s standpoint, we don't want to spend extra money on additional services for a population that isn’t even recognized. And it is evident that the government will try to save as much money as feasible and if we think accurately, there aren’t many supporters for the LGBTQ community yet, so the government stepping in and taking an action won’t happen until there are more partisans.

AIDS is a disease that affects nearly 36.7 million people worldwide. With proportions nearly as fatal as the black death one would think that when AIDS was discovered and started causing deaths, the government would take immediate action. However when AIDS was discovered under the Reagan administration in the 1980s, this was not the case. In fact, Reagan did not so much as say the word “AIDS” until 1985, four years after AIDS had been discovered and three years after it was given a name. In addition to this, Reagan’s appointed Secretary of Health, Margaret Heckler refused to provide sufficient funding for the treatment and research of AIDS, even though she claimed that the disease was among her top priorities. The reason the AIDS epidemic was

I believe that gay marriage is a right that all Americans can choose to have. Even if you are not homosexual each and every american should have the right to express themselves freely. Most people are very discriminatory about this topic but in today's society we should change that view. Because people think this is a problem, other bigger issues are being ignored. After all of

Another topic raised is that of homophobia. Though frowned upon by many, homophobia is still very much alive in today's society. Psychical violence, extreme prejudice and exclusion are problems

AIDS, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, have been a worldwide issue for years. There have been countless controversies about AIDS but not many know the real truth behind this disease. AIDS epidemic have crucially changed American medicine procedures and greatly induced economic and social changes in the United States of America.

The amendment imposed a "special disability upon those persons alone." The only way homosexuals could obtain civil rights protection under Colorado law would be to convince enough citizens to vote to amend the state constitution. The kinds of protections that Amendment 2 would take away were those "against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute civic life in a free society."("Romer v. Evans." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437703853.html)

The legalization of gay marriage has created a portal of controversy throughout people across the nation. Citizens of America are encouraged to be themselves and to feel comfortable in their skin; that being said, the authority of gay marriage should have been enforced decades prior. This generation has come a long way in expressing first amendment rights, but this topic