Margaret Marshall The Chief Juice Of The Supreme Judicial Court

Women’s equality has made huge advancements in the United States in the past decade. One of the most influential persons to the movement has been a woman named Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ruth faced gender discrimination many times throughout her career and worked hard to ensure that discrimination based on a person’s gender would be eliminated for future generations. Ginsburg not only worked to fight for women’s equality but fought for the rights of men, as well, in order to show that equality was a human right’s issue and not just a problem that women faced. Though she faced hardships and discrimination, Ruth never stopped working and thanks to her equality is a much closer reality than it was fifty years ago. When Ruth first

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

I join the opinion of the court in favor of Hodges and offer these accompanying thoughts. In order to determine if the state is required under the Fourteenth Amendment to license a marriage of same sex, we must establish a foundation in regards to marriage and its entitlements. The court argues that marriage “is not a fundamental right,” and with this conclusion, the state is not be required to legally recognize any marriage it does not see fit. Fundamental rights are due strict scrutiny, but issues of liberty interest only require rational basis. There is a significant difference between the two approaches with ‘rational basis’ only requiring that the law be related to a government interest. “Rational basis” review is generally used in cases where fundamental rights are of issue and is thus fitting for this case under these assumptions.” The constitution does not specifically list marriage as a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights or any of its additional amendments and thus leaves ample room for interpretation of is significance. The defense attempts to use the Fourteenth amendment in their defense as it asserts,

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).

Stoddard briefly points out that "marriage is not fundamentally a procreative unit" because a number of heterosexual couples that are united in marriage have no intention of raising a family and are incapable of having children. Heterosexual marriages in general, however, provide social stability to the economy because the union between a man and a woman has the potential to bear offspring. Stoddard also states that presently "all 50 states deny that choice [the decision whether or not to marry] to millions of gay and lesbian Americans." Firstly, in the case of Baehr vs. Miike, gays were allowed to become a married couple in the state of Hawaii on December 3, 1996. Consequently, Stoddard's claim that "all 50 states deny that choice" is somewhat extreme. Lastly, not a single state denies heterosexuals the right to refuse marriage. It is the legal attainment of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that states disallow homosexuals.

Hodges, the Supreme Court adjudges the banning of same-sex marriage as violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court clearly establishes that marriage is a fundamental right because marriage is “decisions among the most intimate that an individual can make” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 12) and that individual autonomy should be protected under liberty. The Court also reasons that same-sex couples have the rights to enjoy intimate association that come with marriage. Because the Due Process Clause protects liberty of the citizens and rights to marriage is one of the fundamental liberties, prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the Due Process Clause. For Equal Protection Clause, the Court states that “same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 17). Because it is solely the sexual preference of the same-sex couples that deprives them of these benefits, the Court argues that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection

Chief Justice Roberts made a principal dissent, claiming that in just one day, the court has transformed the societal institution of marriage that has banded humanity together for millennia. Roberts made clear that no consensus is worth a decision he feels completely overstepped the Supreme Court’s constitutional bonds, stating “Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner…but do not celebrate the constitution”. Roberts repeatedly insists that history and tradition must be drawn on to come to a conclusion, and judges ought not to rely on his or her own moral judgement concerning the morality of whether denying the fundamental rights would be unjust in light of the constitution. Although Roberts’ does agree that same-sex couples who have previously challenged state laws excluding them from marriage “make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness” , he ultimately believes that the Constitution cannot decide what is fair and what is just.

In the United States there are three branches to our national government. The Judicial Branch deals with upholding the law and at times interpreting the law. The Judicial Branch is tiered, having several levels of courts, of which the Supreme Court is the highest. The Supreme Court is composed of nine justices who are tasked with hearing important cases and reviewing, when the need arises, certain laws. The level of work, intelligence, and skill required of those who sit as justices in this court is demanding, and only the best can even qualify for the job. One current Justice is Sonia Sotomayor. Her life is the perfect example of how a justice should be.

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

The BLAG argues that the Court should apply the lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis review, because the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community is not a protected class. Since all parties agree the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, the court argues there is no injury to Congress if DOMA is overturned, that BLAG violates the separation of powers, and that no Article III controversy exists. There are many social implications for the DOMA but BLAG agues it serves a federal interest by preserving traditional marriage to encourage responsible procreation. Proponents of DOMA believe marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers—parents with differentiated roles that are not interchangeable. BLAG claims responsible procreation is at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage because of the inextricable link between marriage and children. Those opposed to DOMA argue it is bad social policy and claim that all Americans—regardless of their sexual orientation—deserve the rights afforded to their peers because all are contributing members of society. They also argue that burdens placed on members of the LGBT community are based on harmful stereotypes with no basis in the individuals’ abilities. Concerns from the federal system are proponents of DOMA claim the law protects states’ sovereignty and neither creates a federalism problem nor hinders state autonomy. DOMA ensures states can independently decide to refuse same-sex marriages because DOMA allows each state to define marriage for itself under state law, and does not allow any state’s definition to eclipse another’s. Those opposed to DOMA claim Congress disregarded federalism

The debate on whether the constitution should be changed to allow gays/lesbians legal status, whereby the partners are protected while in the institution of marriage is a heated debated which has been ongoing in many years. There are those states whereby the rights of gays/lesbians to have legal marriages have been recognized, but in most of the states their right to legal marriage have not been recognized. This essay looks at the reasons why the American constitution should be amended to ensure that all states across the United States recognizes the rights of gays/lesbians to have legal marriages. The argument will focus on the impact that lack of legal marriages have on the gay and lesbian partners and the reasons why constitutional amendment can only be the best solution to resolve the issues of the rights for the gay community to a legal marriage.

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.

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

One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and