Paxton Continues Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage Analysis

In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).

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

As noted, the technical legal question to be addressed is whether the federal government or individual states have the right to legalize or prohibit same-sex marriage. To claim that this exact question is increasingly a public concern is to understate the issue. It may be ironic but, as the controversy has grown in recent years, there seems to be more of a demand from the society that the issue be settled once and for all, and for that eyes turn to federal authority. This came to a head in the presidential campaigns of 2013, as same-sex marriage became a “hot button” issue actually defining voter sympathies as either liberal or conservative (Levendusky 42). In plain terms, the Mitt Romney campaign directly appealed to conservative populations opposed to, or perceived as opposed to, gay marriage; the Obama reelection efforts not unexpectedly countered this with an appeal to more liberal factions, which typically favor same-sex unions. The differences in approach aside, the clear fact remains that the nation was emphatically looking to its highest leadership to make a decision, which in turn would lead to federal recognition or denial of same-sex marriage.

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

At the time the article was first published, the push for legalizing gay unions was a controversial topic in the USA. The writer, ‘Rev. Louis P. Sheldon was at the time, the chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, a California-based organization of some 32,000 churches’ (p. 1). He was obviously against the idea of accepting gay marriage and sustained that gay relationships are simply ‘unnatural’. Moreover, he stated that nearly 80% of Americans were opposing the legalization of marriage among gay people. Along with the author many people opposed to the idea at that time of his article – But in despite of that, gay marriage was finally legalized in the United States in June 26, 2015 (Wikipedia 2001).

In “Texas clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.” (2015), Lauren Gambino states that Texas clerks can refuse to issue marriage license to same sex couples, they can justify their refusal on the grounds of religious liberty. Gambino supports her claim by providing factual evidence--including quotes from Texas clerks, which makes her more ethical, because she provides a neutral informative article on this matter. Gambino hopes to inform US citizens of what is going on in Texas, following the same sex marriage legalization by the Supreme Court, while enticing anger

They begin their article by summarizing the facts of the situation. Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to a homosexual couple. She then received a federal court order that demanded she issue the license. Her next move was to appeal for a stay of the court order, which was denied. She was then called before the District Court to give an account for her actions.

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.

According to the CBS News Poll, 58% of Americans believe it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry (Polling Report, June 9-13, 2016). Since recent years, the support for same sex-marriage has steadily increased. In fact, according to the Gallup Poll, 61% of Americans believe that same-sex couples should validly be recognized by the law with the same rights as traditional marriages (Gallup Poll, May 4-8, 2016). Over time, the idea of marriage has transformed from the union of a man and woman to the union of two people who love each other regardless of their sexual orientation. In fact, according to the CNN/ORC Poll, 59% of Americans support the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage in all fifty states (Polling Report, June 26-28, 2015). Based on these polls, Americans generally support equal rights for all individuals regardless of their sexual orientation. Therefore, a majority of Americans favor government involvement to ensure equal rights for all individuals regardless of their differences. Therefore, the position of most Americans regarding same-sex marriage supports the idea that Americans are generally reform liberalists in their

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

In the case of Jones v. Massachusetts, Michael Jones, an employee of the Sussex County, MA clerk’s office refused to issue a marriage liscense to a same sex couple based on his religious beliefs. His supervisor terminated him from his job, and issued the marriage liscense personally. Jones brought this termination to court as a violation of his first amendment right to religious freedom. The following is a compilation of the evidence and logic that supports not only that this claim is constitutionally valid, but that the precendents the court has set also approve this notion.

The Senate version of the bill combines the Pastor Protection Act, which protects religious leaders from being forced to perform same-sex marriages, and the First Amendment Defense Act, which allows tax-funded groups to deny services to lesbians and gays.

From Rauch’s article, the rise in backing up for same-sex marriage over the last decade is among the biggest change in opinion on any policies over this period. Recent national survey reveals that much of the change is attributable to the influx of a large cohort of young adults who are far more free to gay rights than the previous generations (Rauch, p. 18). Equally significant is that a significant number of Americans and gay marriage supporters claim they have changed their thoughts on this issue in approval of gay marriage.

Same sex- marriage is still the topic of many peoples conversation across the country. Citizens, divided by politic party, are very passionate about how they feel about it. The president didn’t approve of it at first, but now he finally accepts same- sex marriage, the Judicial System uses its power to dictate to the States, forcing them to accept same- sex marriage. Both houses of Congress continue to debate what marriage means.