Human Resources Of Oregon V. Smith

In The Gay Marriage Case, Obergefell v Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decided that a state may not prohibit same-sex marriage. Instead, it emphasized that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to the gay society through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States of America Constitution. The involved decision maker in the case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who gave four primary reasons for his decision.

Marriage is a social institution that is practiced globally. Traditionally marriages are known to occur between one man and one woman. However, cultural values and time have reshaped and birthed new types of marriages. Polygamy is a type of marriage that is often practiced around the world specifically in Asia, Middle East, and Africa. Polyamorous marriages have been in existence for centuries. Polygamy is classified into two categories, polygyny, and polyandry. Polygyny is the most popular type of polygamy, in this type of polygamous marriage, a man is married to multiple women. On the other hand, polyandry which is the least familiar type of polygamy is where a woman is married to multiple husbands. The intolerance of Mormons in the United States has led to the outlawing of polyamorous marriages. The Morrill Anti Bigamy law of 1862 outlawed the practice of polygamy in the United States. Like many other laws, this law can be overturned. In fact, it should be reversed because illegalizing polygamy is unethical. Polygamy should be legalized because it is unconstitutional for it to be illegal, same-sex marriages and interracial marriages are legal, therefore so should polyamorous marriages. In addition, legalizing polygamy would prevent immigrant families who practice polygamy from being separated and it would also strengthen the feminist movement.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

Although marriage is a societal value, there has been a sharp increase in the instances of alternative family relationships, a phenomenon the law has been relatively quick to respond to. BOCSAR figures show that from 1987 to 2007, the number of married couples developed from 63% to 62%, which in the same period the number of de facto relationships (both heterosexual and homosexual) grew from 6% to 9%. As such, a new movement sources desire for

The respondents in Smith were fired from their jobs as counselors at a drug rehabilitation clinic when they tested positive for peyote, an illegal drug in the state of Oregon. As members of the Native American Church ingesting peyote is a sacramental ritual. The respondents filed claims for unemployment benefits and were denied due to their illegal behavior. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the decision and the state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the state could withhold

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

In the United States Constitution, the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Gold). Historically, as demonstrated in cases such as Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the government in general, has well-upheld this amendment, but starting sometime in the second half of the 20th century, they are slowly embracing it less and less, as demonstrated in cases such as Texas v. Johnson. The recent hostility towards the First Amendment demonstrates that its rights

coming over from previous mother country, England. In fact it was so important it was part of the very 1st amendment, including freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Since then it has been a struggle to determine whether or not certain instances would qualify as hindering the 1st’s claim to the right of Religion. An important case where that occurred is the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye V.S. City of Hialeah (1993). In the case the city of Hialeah is targeting a specific group based on their religious views. On the other side of the fence the church group argues that the state laws are going against the first amendment right to religion.

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

Many other states have developed laws that protect individuals' religious freedoms, yet Indiana's law has more of a controversial front to its recent legislation. This action is to help court cases to decide whether a business owner was discriminating towards a customer or simply complying with the first amendment. Most have argued that this legislation discriminates towards sexuality; whereas, others believe they would be practicing their religious rights. Government and religion have crossed paths before, but this new bill overpasses a boundary that appeals intolerable. Furthermore, the causes of the new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is causing an uproar due to it's discriminatory presence and the future of this country's well-being

This policy is necessary because current laws in Florida that restrict marriage to different-sex couples violate the US Constitution’s commitment to equal protection under the law and because the Due Process Clause protects individuals freedoms of personal choices, which includes their choice to marry and have a family. The benefits of this proposal far outweigh the disadvantages, and ensure equal rights of all citizens.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), “the Supreme Court established a three-part test for determining when states were allowed to support religious accommodations, making it permissible when the law served a “secular legislative purpose;” when the law did not promote or impede religious interests, and when the law would not create ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’”(P. R. Lockhart, 2016)

For this journal entry, I have decided to review the Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage Act, was introduced in 2009, as a repeal to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which deems that the federal government does not recognize marriages of same sex couples. The Respect for Marriage Act was then reintroduced in 2015. The Respect for Marriage Act is a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/29)., amends the Defense of Marriage Act to repeal a provision that prohibited state, territory, possession, or Indian tribe from being required to recognize any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state,

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

Polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse and is culturally accepted in many parts of the world, but is illegal in the United States. There are two well known forms of polygamy, both of which are still presently practiced in numerous cultures globally, polygyny and polyandry. These practices take place in societies where it is important to have either more men or more women in a families’ household based on the kind of environment they reside in. This paper is going to take a look at who practices polygamy, the history of polygamy in the United States, and how this kind of polygamous lifestyle affects the children that are the products of these family structures.