Loving Vs Virginia

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.

The United States Supreme Court was, and still is today, the important backbone of America’s judicial system. This court deals with numerous cases throughout the year and keeps the country and government fair with its decisions. However, being responsible for giving justice where it is due, the Court is sometimes faced with hard choices that will make a lasting impression on the U.S. and its people. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, it did just that. As a Supreme Court landmark case, Loving v. Virginia definitely indicated a critical moment of change in civil rights for America and interracial couples everywhere.

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.

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 case of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights are just restrictions on the federal government alone. To prevent the states from limiting rights granted to the citizens in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment was passed. The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves after the American Civil War. It was severely contested, especially by the states of the Confederacy that were defeated and were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment’s first section includes many clauses, but one important one is the Equal Protection Clause. This clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. The clause has also been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. Eventually, selective incorporation occurred in which the civil liberties granted in the Bill of Rights were applied to the states on a case-by-case basis through the 14th Amendment. Now, the same liberties that were granted to the federal government, were now enacted with the state governments. Same-sex marriage is one of these fundamental rights, rights that require a high degree of protection from government

If gay marriage is legalized, employers would therefore be affected. Affected in the way that benefits available to married heterosexuals will then be the same for married gay couples. In the event of legalizing gay marriage, same-sex married couples will be given a range of benefits that include employee benefits, inheritance and real estate rights, child custody, emergency health care procedures and tax laws. (Kuiow, Spring 2001) There are some employers that currently give domestic partners benefits, at their discretion. However, because there is not a final document of proof that a gay couple is indeed domestic partners, it makes it difficult for employers and others to determine what constitutes as a gay partnership. How does one go about in proving that they do in fact have a spousal equivalent in a same-sex relationship, rather than just a roommate? Granting gays the right to marriage or the equivalent of being married without the Church being involved would open up numerous solutions and put the gray areas of gay relationships to rest.

Before this case, a number of states had anti-miscegenation statues in place, criminalizing love in the name of racism. This case brought an end to the acceptance of scientific racism in the realm of marriage in that showed such legislation not as sound or logical but as hateful and unconstitutional. Loving’s legacy is strong even today, as it played a pivotal role in the groundbreaking same sex marriage case, Obergefell V. Hoges, paving away for the legalization of gay marriage. Without this case and the intervention of the federal government, states could have very well continued their practice of anti-miscegenation policies. The atrocities committed upon the Lovings and the millions of couples affected by such hateful policies are an embarrassment to our nation’s history. This case acted as a federal resolve to past and future Americans fighting for the right to love. Loving V. Virginia led the nation away from its dark past and towards a more equal future, filled not with “scientific” defenses for racism but with scientific defenses against

The Constitution of the United States does not define what marriage is, thus supporters of this act believe that each state should have the choice whether to recognize marriage between same-sex couples. Furthermore, in the tenth amendment it states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved

The Petitioners were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Petitioners returned to Virginia and were charged by a grand jury with violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages. The Petitioners pled guilty to the violation and left the State of Virginia pursuant to a condition of their judicial sentence. The Petitioners filed suit in a Virginia state court to have the sentence vacated pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state court denied the motion to vacate the sentences. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision based on the rationale that the State had a legitimate purpose in preserving the

In the summer of 2015 the U.S supreme court ruled in favor to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 countries in the United States. This all occurred because of the Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) case. This very important case involved “14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased” and the couples argued that the “state officials violated [their] 14th amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another state given full recognition and also violated their equal protection Clause. The supreme court ruled for this case because in the 14th Amendment it clearly declares that all people should have “equal protection under the law”, regardless of race or ethnicity.

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.

As a general rule, constitutional law examination differs depending on the nature of the right that is being asserted in a case. In the Constitution people have various rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Other rights in the Constitution are not presented in the Constitution, but they are arguably stated within its context. In this paper I will agree that the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges was right in affirming the equal rights of same-sex couples based on the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Court’s ruling in this case has an effect on the legal rights of children of same-sex couples, the rights of people who identify as gay, and the states’ sovereign right to enact legislation that defines

According to DOMA, “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” (sec 3). Until recently 2013, the US Supreme Court finally delivered the verdict that declared section 3 of the DOMA, which is the rejection of right to gay marriage is unconstitutional (Shapiro 208). In “Gay Marriage Is A Fundamental Right” by Nathan Goetting, “The right to many, and to marry the person of one's choice, is a fundamental right and a necessary aspect of human happiness. This has been an explicitly stated abiding principle since the Court used its power of judicial review to strike down as unconstitutional a legislature's definition of marriage in 1967.” Currently, 17 states in the United States have legalized the right to same sex marriage. The realization of DOMA is unconstitutional has further evidenced that gay marriage is one of the civil right that should not be taken away by the government, and it is an inevitable changes that open doors for equality and equity.

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