Love Is Love By Cartoon Arts International Essay

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) allows for all the states to deny same-sex couples the same rights as their counterparts. It also gives a formal definition to marriage as the union between a man and a woman (Same Sex Marriage, 2017). The bill does violate the Establishment clause in the First Amendment as the government fails to separate church and state. The document does allude to the book of Genesis when it defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman (Text-HR, 2017). However, most of the nation did not approve of same-sex marriages as the time so the President chose to sign the bill that would later be revoked because of court case Obergefell vs Hodges (Same Sex Marriage, 2017).

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.

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was enacted in September 21, 1996 signed by President Bill Clinton. The purpose of this act was to recognize marriage as a bond only between a man and a woman. It has been widely debated whether marriage only consists between a man and woman, since because it has been traditionally recognized and practiced dating back thousands of years ago until today.

The case was later sent to lower court. Voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Hawaii gain national attention, over 40 states over the next 10 years will pass the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMAs). That defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. On September 21, 1996. President Bill Clinton, signed Federal Defense Of Marriage Act into a law. Which define marriage at a federal level between one man and one woman. This meant there would be no recognition in same sex nor federal protection and benefits given to married heterosexual couples. Vermont was the first state to introduce same sex marriage by enacting a statue without being required to do so by a court decision. December 20, 1999, Vermont court ruled in baker v. Vermont that Vermont constitution entitles same sex couples to the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite sex couples. Between 2005 and Sep. 15, 2010, 14 more states followed suit, bringing the total number of states with constitutional bans on gay marriage to 30. On July 19, 2011, the Obama administration announced that it will be supporting a bill to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act. Another decision on Feburary 23, 2011, Obama instructed the Justice Department ti stop defending Defense of Marriage act, over concerns that it violates the fifth amendment. On May 9, 2012 President Obama was the first sitting

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).

On the third of January 1996, an act was established to define and protect the instruction of marriage during the second session, which was called the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’. This act made it that the United States passed a federal law that defined marriage for federal purpose of the union of a single man and a single women, which allowed states to refuse the acknowledgement of

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.

Unlike gender, race, age, religion or ethnicity, sexual orientation anti-discrimination still vary by state. Until 2009, a 1969 federal law defined hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, or ethnicity. In October 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. In 2013, in United States v Windsor, The Supreme Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), stating that it violated the equal protections in the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 5-to-4 decision by Justice Kennedy, The Court stated, “Careful consideration” had to be given to “discriminations of unusual character.” On June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriage throughout out the United States. This case actually made Missouri's Constitution null and void, because Missouri's Constitution directly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman, discriminating against same-sex

In defense of marriage by John Corny, President Bill Clinton and the government were able to approve the defense of marriage act (DOMA). DOMA is defined as the union of a man and a woman which it was what mostly of the people consider to be right. The main question is if people should continue this or change? The answer is that many activists have been trying to change that definition. This changes has already begun in many states of the country , and those who supported DOMA long time ago, are not able to support marriage today. There is one thing that has never become different, it is how people think a kid is best raised by a woman and a man. However, today marriage appears to be in a general agreement that is being complicated.

A major victory was won by the LGBT community when the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal on June 26th of 2015 across all of the United States. This ruling effectively states that any state-law restricting marriage to male-female is unconstitutional. This had been a fight since the 1970s when the issues of same-sex marriage first began to gain steam. Over the years, various states have legalised same-sex marriage to certain degrees, however it wasn’t until after 3 decades that the issue was finally acknowledged on a national level. This change furthers the ideology of freedom and equality of the american constitution and will invoke the betterment of

Susie O’Brien’s article ‘It’s time to honour gay couples and allow them to marry’ (The Advertiser, November 20, 2010, p. 27) is an argument that surrounds the unfair inequality of gay couples and the issue of gay marriage. O’Brien uses argumentative devices such as appeals to pathos, logos, repetition, rhetorical questions, tone and considered words and concise sentences. These devices provide the audience with a clear direction that remains focused throughout the entire article.

end-of-war celebration to that of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. The cartoon is not so much a protest, but a commemoration of the goals achieved by the gay rights movement (that is not to say that protests are not continuing). The author most heavily expresses his idea through his craft decisions—the focal point being the author’s choice to compare the Court ruling to the ending of World War Ⅱ. The choice to use an iconic photograph that many readers will recognize helps the reader to easily understand what he is trying to say. Additionally, the comparison of the two events demonstrates to the reader how monumental the Supreme Court ruling was, since many Americans know the importance of the end of the war.

As mentioned previously in 1996 Clinton voted for DOMA. Later he then turned to support same sex marriage. The Bush administration also played a role in DOMA. In 2004 George Bush proposed a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to the opposite-sex couple. In 2005 he then announced that he would not lobby because U.S. Senators thought DOMA would survive a constitutional change (Campbell, 2012). In 2008 Barack Obama supported an appeal of DOMA. In 2009 The Justice Department defended the constitutionality of DOMA. In 20011 Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement regarding lawsuits challenging DOMA section 3. In 2009 three Democratic members of Congress form New York, Wisconsin, and Colorado, introduced legislation to repeal DOMA. This Act was called the respect for marriage Act. This bill had 91 original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, which included Clinton, Barr and several other legislators. It was suggested the DOMA could be overturned more quickly through lawsuits such as Gill v. Office of personnel management, which was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (Campbell,

The passing of the bill, titled Obergefell v. Hodges marks a major turning point in American history, overturning many previous decisions and court rulings as far back as 1996 with the Defense of Marriage Act, declared unconstitutional by the Obama Administration in 2013 and overturned by the new Supreme Court decision in 2015.

Doma or The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 in efforts to stop same-sex marriages in fear of the debate in Hawaii. Doma this labeled gays as immoral, perverse, depraved, and an attack on God’s principles. Congress passed Doma defining marriage as between a women and a man for the first time in history (Stone, 2012). Congress was clearly influenced by religious beliefs in passing Doma, which makes this unconstitutional. The United states government provides many benefits to married couples such as federal employees are entitled to medical coverage, the spouse of an individual covered by Social Security is eligible for retirement and survivor benefits, and married couples who file joint tax returns usually pay considerably lower federal income taxes than individuals who file separately (Stone, 2012 p.1). However, gay couples are refused these rights under law. Gay couples are denied many rights making them second class in the eyes of the government. If the partner of a gay couple was to be hospitalized the other can be denied rights to see them because they are not considered family. If the partner was to pass away the family can come in and make all the decisions even though it might be against the wishes of the deceased. The family can then take everything away from the surviving partner that dedicated their life and love to. The