Policy Advice Memorandum: Equality of Marriage

In President Barack Obama speech regarding the Supreme Court's decision on marriage equality, he is addressing the public of the United States of America. President Obama makes this speech hours after the Supreme Court legalizes same sex marriage in all 50 states. The purpose of President Obama’s speech was to inform the public and show the LGBT community his support and gratitude. President Obama’s tone towards this subject is serious yet tender. Obama uses diction, details, and syntax to make his statement on marriage equality in the United States.

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.

This essay will be critically analyzing the social policy of same sex marriage using four Australian newspaper articles to demonstrate and examine how inequality through diversity and difference are present and experienced in the public domain. The essay will draw upon What ideological values and assumptions are present in both the newspaper articles and social policy?, What are the social justice concerns in relation to the current same sex policy?, concluding with a reflective component exploring where in relation to the social policy issue I am as a developing social worker.

In this week's assignment, we are going to take a look at a couple of arguments related to an immensely controversial idea in our society, the idea of same-sex marriage. At the end of Chapter Six you will find two different opinions, Justice Margaret Marshall’s majority opinion on Goodridge v. Department of Public Health  and Matthew Spalding’s “A Defining Moment for Marriage and Self-Government.  While many of you may have strong opinions on one side or the other of this debate, this week we're asking you to set

     A debate is raging in America about who people have a right to marry. In response to lesbians and gays asking for the right to marry, many legislators are writing laws to ban same-sex marriage in their respective states. Even President Bush supports a Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage (prez.bush.marriage/). Opponents of such legislation do not want discrimination passed into law and are protesting at every opportunity. One must understand the reasons that people want to ban same-sex

Appeal to Tradition- Historically, marriage has been between one man and one woman, and our forefathers never considered gay marriage should ever be legal. Thus, gay unions should not be afforded the same rights and privileges of traditional marriages. The men who wrote the constitution were great thinkers and it is not a decision made by accident. If, after 200-plus years the other points have stood the test-of-time, so too should their views on marriage.

When understanding this case one must look at the true question being posed by people who don’t like the way it is now. Do those two sections have a purpose and are they still needed in the states constitution. The state which oppose change, states that the sections is upholding the beliefs and tradition of the state. It is “deeply rooted in our states history.” (Article IV, Sec 2)They argue that why should we rewrite the definition of marriage to one that has never existed.

Gay marriage should not be recognized, similar to the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in the case of United States versus Windsor. Antonin Scalia argues, “The Court’s ruling in the United States versus Windsor would wrongly invalidate state efforts to limit lawful marriage to opposite-sex couples”. In this paper, I will explain the legal and constitutional reasoning on why same-sex marriage shouldn’t be legalized nationally.

Elizabeth Schroeder’s book, Taking Sides, looks at opposing views on controversial issues, one of which is legalizing same-sex marriage. In their article, “Talking About the Freedom to Marry: Why Same-Sex Couples Should Have Equality in Marriage,” the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund supports same-sex marriage. An opposing view, is given by Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor. In his article, “The 28th Amendment: It Is Time to Protect Marriage, and Democracy, in America,” he explains why he is against same-sex marriage.

Another largely agreed upon opinion is that the Federal and State governments have no right to define or intervene in marriage and who can and cannot get married because marriage is a religious practice. Following the belief of separation of church and state, those that take this stance have a variety of opinions on how this hot button issue should be handled. Most will say that every definition needs to be thrown out and that for legal or insurance purposes anyone who is married, regardless of orientation, should have their relationship defined as a Civil Union by the government. Additionally, some will even go as far as to say those who are

The political issue of same-sex marriage has recently become one of the biggest debates of the 21st century. Its rise in popularity soared within the United States in 2000, when Vermont became the first state in the country to recognize these types of unions between same-sex couples. I believe that same-sex couples should not be denied of their right to marry, but there are several believable arguments, which contradict my opinion on the topic. These arguments include the beliefs that; allowing same-sex couples to wed will cause the institution of marriage to crumble, citizens of the United States should not have to pay taxes to support something which they believe to be wrong, and that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to

a. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-e/) If we allow same sex marriage it would lead to over 1.5 billion dollars for the economy, because of their marriages. Some of the money would go to the government immediately, because of license. The rest would go to flowershops and other businesses for weddings.

The topic that I have decided to do for my policy memo would be about same-sex marriage. The reason that I chose this topic is because it is something that has always interest me because I have family members and friends that are part of the LGTBQ community. Also, I became an ally to the LGBTQ community because it made me realize that all individuals deserve the same equal opportunities to marry the person they truly love regardless of what sex they are. I believe that others should care because it is new uprising culture. This debate took place in Washington D.C. in the Supreme Court, which ended in a five to four majority.

The political aspects of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to federal and government recognized marriages are a very complex issue. There are basically two sides to the political argument of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. On one side are the liberals who feel that marriage is a civil right that should be denied based on the basis of a person's sexual orientation. On the other side you have conservatives who feel that marriage is an institution in which should only constitute one man and one woman. In this report we are going to examine how the issue of same-sex marriages are affecting our current political environment, how politics is affecting the movement for

As we know, same-sex marriage has been a prominent issue that has so many arguments not just in the United States, but around the world over many years now. There is absolutely nothing more controversial than same-sex marriage in gay rights topic. Everyone has different opinions about same-sex marriage whether it should be legal or not. We now have to consider two aspects that are moral and religious. These two form a fundamental belief that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are different. Based on the definition of marriage, the view of religion, bad effects to children, and the lifestyle that should not be encouraged; therefore, the government should not legalize the same-sex marriage.