Lgbt Community : A Heated Topic Within Politics

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.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court held that same sex couples can now exercise the fundamental right of marriage nationwide. Justice Kennedy reached this result by redefining what marriage is.

For centuries same sex marriage has been a dispute, especially in Texas because of how powerfully Texas believes in the bible and how extremely “old fashioned” it is. The debate has been over LGBT equality, just like the black civil rights movement and the women’s movement in the 1960’s. Due to the traditional and common law, Texas does not allow same sex marriage. Actually, the state banned same sex marriage a decade ago or more. The issue was during the 2004 presidential election when Missouri and Louisiana voters approved same sex marriage and eleven states placed amendments. Everyone held their word and continued to protect the laws of Texas. The constitutional amendments that banned same sex marriage well-defined marriage as a union between

Historically, the conservative values conveyed by many Texans have shown disapproval for change and differences. Amongst the list of social and political views conservatives have disapproved of in the past would be civil rights, women’s rights, and gay rights. All three are issues of which are still under conflict and disapproval. With this said, gay rights are the most recent issue that has shaken the traditionalist views upheld in Texas. To state the opposition of gay rights, conservatives in general do not support the relationships shared between homosexuals. They deem it as unnatural or immoral and therefore, it is seen as wrong in their eyes. In addition to the conservative claims as homosexuality being unnatural, the traditional culture does not take too kindly to change, which is exactly what began as soon as the Court’s ruling was made. In conclusion, it is the traditional political culture such as the conservative ideology shared by many and the opposition to change that has affected Texas in

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

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.

In recent years, the United States has been struggling to pass transgender rights, and Texas is of no means of an exception. Some of these include bathroom rights. In Texas, the bathroom bill passed through the Texas Senate, but did not survive through the Texas House, resulting in a temporary halt. Even now, the government still question the rights. It is suggested that Texas may need a bathroom bill, but would probably end in some kind of financial consequence, along with many Americans losing their jobs. The Texas Bathroom Bill, otherwise known as SB6, could also fuel disunity within our nation and cause several riots.

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 history of LGBTQIA+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. The identities within the LGBTQIA+ community that are accepted have shifted over the years as the majority of the population comes to understand some identities to be commonplace and struggles to understand others. However, the gaining of rights and acceptance by the LGBTQIA+ community has nearly always been tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQIA+ rights issues are controversial, the statute that convicted John Lawrence and Tyson Garner for having private, consensual gay sex as well as the means of conviction are clearly unconstitutional on several grounds,

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.

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

Texas employment protections exclude sexual orientation or gender identity. On June 26,2015 the Supreme Court made it law of the land that same sex couple could marry in all states, so in reality in Texas, you could marry the love of your life, and on Monday lose your job, and get kicked out of your apartment because of that legal action. Federal and state laws cover all protected classes contained in the ordinance in fair housing except sexual orientation and gender identity. Federal Law provides equal access in public accommodation and employment protection for all classes but it does exclude sexual orientation and gender identity (CityZen & NationBuilder,

On June 4, 2008, the plaintiffs in this case include fifteen same-sex couples who wish to marry in California and support groups for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Californians. They were denied many times; however, now before the California Supreme Court, they argue that “California has long led the nation in recognizing that constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection, privacy, due process and freedom of association and expression require that lesbian and gay people, like all people, be treated fairly under the law.” Nonetheless these protections, California has denied same-sex couples the right to marry. That denial, they argue, violates the California Constitution.

A social problem is normally a term used to describe problems with a particular area or group of people in the world. Social problems often involve problems that affect real life. It also affects how people react to certain situations. While differences in racial/ethnic prejudices have been explored extensively in past literature (e.g. Bobo and Zubrinksy’s 1996, study of differential prejudices directed toward Hispanic and Black individuals), little U.S. research has investigated how attitudes toward lesbians, gays, bisexual men, bisexual women, and male-to-female (MtF) and female-to-male (FtM) transgender (henceforth “LGBT”) may differ ( Marcus, 2015).