Persuasive Essay On Same Sex Marriage

Marriage has been defined as “the legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of husband and wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.” (Marriage, n.d.) In 1973, Maryland became “the first state to pass a statute banning marriage between same-sex couples.” (Freedom to Marry, 2015) After much debate, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled for a ‘Freedom to Marry’ in all states, even against the states who still had a ban on same-sex marriage. (Freedom to Marry, 2015) Obviously, even with a federal ruling and over thirty years, there is still a

Same sex marriages have both pros and cons. With this issue, it seems society is more concerned about the physical and moral issues behind it. Same sex partners are trying to seek the same benefits as heterosexual couples. By keeping the DOMA in effect in all states, same sex partners will be

Proposition 8 was placed on a ballot in California which made same- sex marriage illegal, and was also deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Once the elected officials of California chose not to defend Proposition 8 once it was deemed unconstitutional the case should have been dismissed, and the petitioners shouldn’t have been allowed standing for appeal. DOMA was purposed that if States recognized same- sex marriages they were to be classified as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law. The definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a religious ideology. To deny a person their right as a citizen of the United States of America to marry whomever they choose is illegal, and the Courts have agreed. Since the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the decision in the Loving v. Virginia (1958) which deemed the laws of banning interracial marriages unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment. Justice Earl Warren noted “Under the Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, the person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.” This has opened up many discussions that because the ban of interracial marriages was deemed unconstitutional the laws that marriage is only between a man and a woman is a gendered based classification. Restricting marriage on the foundation of a person’s gender is just as unconstitutional as laws restricting marriage on the basis of a person’s

Same-sex couples should have access to the same marriage benefits as heterosexual couples. Prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional discrimination.

The United States Constitution protects certain liberties in the Bill of Rights and rights deemed “fundamental” that are “traditionally protected by our society.” (Michael H. v. Gerald D.). The liberty at issue in this case is the right to marry, which has been deemed fundamental by this Court in Loving v. Virginia, where we stated that “[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” (Loving v. Virginia). The petitioners in the case at bar seek that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages be equal to traditional, opposite-sex couples.

This is the first time that the government decided to let same-sex married couples have the same tax benefits as traditional marriages. What exactly does this mean? It means that since same-sex marriages are only legal in 13 states plus Washington D.C. same-sex couples can only receive federal benefits in those states. They can file taxes as married filing jointly, they can participate in their spouse’s employee benefits, retirement benefits and as in this case if a spouse dies the other can receive survivor benefits.

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

We define marriage as either a.) “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law” or b.) “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage” (Merriam-Webster). Although, until June 26th, 2013, federal law did not recognize the latter definition until Edith Windsor, surviving wife of Thea Spyer who left her entire estate to Windsor sued for spousal rights. Due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which 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 (United States Congress)”, when Spyer passed and left her entire estate to her wife (who she married in Toronto, Canada in 2007, in which same-sex marriage was legalized since June 2003) Windsor was unable to claim spousal exemption on the estate tax, which their legal marriage said she deserved.

The Defense Marriage Act is also known as DOMA. This act has been around for decades and continues to change over the years to shape individuals rights and needs. Individual’s perception of marriage equality is constantly evolving, and the number of government officials that recognize same-sex marriage is constantly changing (Rodriguez & Blumell, 2014). This act not only affects the LGBTQ community and their families, but also affects the whole nation. Many have different opinions on the topic and what should be in the Defense Marriage Act. Some were elated with the recent decision in the summer of 2013 the LGBT community where included in the Defense Marriage Act. This arose when the language of section (2) in the DOMA, was defined as unconstitutional

On June 26, 2013, The United States Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enabling same-sex couples legally married under state law to be recognized for the purpose and benefit of federal law. Section 3 of DOMA previously defined marriage as the legal union of two persons of the opposite sex. This definition was challenged in several court cases for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Edith Windsor in U.S. v. Windsor, declaring DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional and allowing same-sex couples to be recognized as married for federal purposes. This opens up several opportunities within federal income tax and estate and gift tax. Some of these benefits include higher standard deductions and gain exclusion; opportunity to lower tax bracket through combining incomes; and entitlement to the marital deduction, gift splitting, and portability of DSUE. Marriage also results in tax disadvantages such as the marriage penalty, joint and several liability, and refund offsetting. Taxpayers and tax preparers should be aware of the new planning opportunities available to married same-sex couples,

The Defense of Marriage Act was a law passed by Congress stating that individual states were not required to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states. President Bill Clinton signed the bill in 1996 (ABC Clio). The act also defined marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman, which had never been clearly defined before. Most importantly, it prevented same-sex couples from recieving federal benefits such as health insurance, retirement savings, and social security (Sprigg). The overruling of this act in 2013 forced states to recognize same-sex marriage licenses given by other states (Supreme Court). It also acted as a step towards same-sex marriage legalization, which took place in a seperate ruling in 2015. Edith

Windsor struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act (commonly referred to as “DOMA”), enacted in 1996, defined for the purposes of the federal government that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. DOMA prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex. In Windsor, the Supreme Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. It required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages that have been entered into in states that recognized same-sex marriage. At the time of the Windsor decision New Jersey did not recognize same-sex

The global divide of same-sex marriage remains a controversial and convoluted topic across North America. The civil rights of human beings were put into question against the underlying discriminatory issue of homosexuality within the state in the New York Washington post article, “As Rulings Are Announced, Cheers and Tears Among Waiting Crowd”. Wednesday June 26th, 2013 at 10:00am marked the official ruling that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a union between man and woman, was unconstitutional. History was made as gay spouses were given the legal right to social security benefits such as, shared health cares plans without tax penalties and gay foreigners married to Americans were given access to

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

As the society changing, the history of marriage also changes. Marriage is legally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship, but do those two partners always have to be a man and a woman? Most people believe that homosexuals should be granted equal rights as heterosexual couples. Being as an important social issue, same-sex marriage has become a hot topic of public debates in the recent years. For over the past decade, public support for the same-sex marriage has quickly risen. The United States is one of over twenty countries that allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. I believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized in all countries for several reasons, such as being an issue of equal rights, separation of church and state, no negative effect on the heterosexual communities, increasing in child adoption, and decreasing divorce and suicide rates.