Research Outline Gay Marriage Essay

The United States of America was founded as a secular sanctuary for ideals like freedom, equality, and tolerance – few will argue against that. Over its history American culture has radically evolved as it strived to meet the ideals its nation was based upon, making changes like ending slavery and providing legal equality for women and minorities, changes that at the time seemed absurd but today are unquestionable merits that define what an “American” is. The quest to reach the ultimate utopian society continues today as true Americans fight the evils of ignorance, stubborn bigotry and the fear to change that still manifest themselves in a large portion of U.S. citizens, preventing this nation from moving forward. One of the outstanding minorities still left to be granted the ideals of freedom, equality, and tolerance are homosexuals trying to obtain the right to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, regardless of gender. Same-sex marriages should be recognized in the eyes of the U.S. government in accordance with its responsibility to provide all American citizens equal freedoms.

In recent years, the debate over same-sex marriage has grown into a nationwide controversy, reverberating into the halls of congress, at the white house, in dozens of state and legislature and courtrooms, and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at both the national and state levels. As the debate rages on, the American religious community remains deeply divided over the issue, and over the morality of homosexuality. The debate has grown from an issue that occasionally arose in a few states to a national and even worldwide controversy.

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights

For the past 3 decades the views surrounding marriage has undergone a great deal of change (Lennox, 2015, p. 1101). This shift is due to the continual discussion of gay marriage. The interplay of religion and politics has led for much controversy. In the United States, the use of Christian and Jewish biblical texts are the main sources drawn upon for opposition, but have also been used as a supportive means of equality. Beyond the religious there are also psychological and physical health arguments, as well as civil rights arguments. Same sex marriage is examined through different paradigms, thus giving rise to religious, political/legal, and religious arguments surrounding the legalization of this institution for gay and lesbian couples.

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

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.

On June 4, 2008, the plaintiffs in this case include fifteen same-sex couples who wish to marry in California and support groups for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Californians. They were denied many times; however, now before the California Supreme Court, they argue that “California has long led the nation in recognizing that constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection, privacy, due process and freedom of association and expression require that lesbian and gay people, like all people, be treated fairly under the law.” Nonetheless these protections, California has denied same-sex couples the right to marry. That denial, they argue, violates the California Constitution.

     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

It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation’s multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But with the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals. One’s sexuality is not a preference, it is immutable, unchangeable, and the Constitution protects us all against prejudices and discrimination based on immutable differences. Not only is not allowing same-sex couples to marry discriminatory, it also makes gays second class citizens. When we as a nation refuse to accord the same marital status to gays and lesbians, we discourage same-sex couples from forming the same relationships we encourage for others, and we are essentially telling gays, those of who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent and less valued. By not legalizing same-sex marriages the US demeans their relationships and demeans gays as individuals. Same-sex marriages must be legalized.

In 2004, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, the District of Columbia and two Native American tribal jurisdictions have legalized same sex marriages. As the years go on, more and more same sex couples will continue to fight for their right to marry who they choose and more states will eventually allow same sex couples their rights to marry whomever they choose (Koppelman, 2004).

Same-sex marriage and straight marriage do not have the same rights. Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage. If same-sex couples enter a civil union they are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided federal law to married couples. Being denied to all these rights they should have may harm people who also experienced discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, gender, and religion. The APA (American Psychological Association) believes it is unfair to discriminate and deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and all of the benefits, rights and privileges. (Wikipedia)

Proposition 8 Violates the separation of church and state. In the state of California Proposition 8 passed. Proposition 8 would deny gays the right to marry, a civil right that is

While seventeen states have already granted couples the right to marry whom they love regardless of gender, the rest of the country continues to forbid same-sex couples to marry (Ahuja) and in doing so, infringe upon one of the most basic freedoms we are allowed. Arguments for same-sex marriage, despite being backed up with hard legal evidence and Supreme Court rulings, continue to face opposition on the grounds of religious beliefs and personal values.

The concept of marriage is in danger of being misunderstood due to same-sex couples wanting to be married and acquire the same benefits as heterosexual marriages. The fundamental purpose of marriage is uniting a man and a woman in a worthy cause to preserve human civilization. If everyone was homosexual, then how could our species be repeatedly produced? This problem could end human existence. Besides, even those who are not homosexual have restrictions on marriage so they can not assume they are being discriminated upon. Restrictions are created to keep the balance and concept of the idea from being muddled. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with why these rules were put into place. As a result, homosexual individuals have the right to marry along with everyone else as long as the restrictions are not crossed. All rights are equal among the people even when dealing with marriage. Just because somebody has different