Same Sex Marriage And Parenting

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.

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.

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).

The first spark to set flames to the waging war on marriage equality happened on October 15, 1971. In the Supreme Court case of Baker v. Nelson on October 15, 1971, one of three cases brought forth by same-sex couples, Richard Baker and James Richard McConnell were denied a marriage license by a county court clerk in Minnesota in May of 1970 (Minnesota Legislature, 1971, Richard John Baker and Another v. Gerald R. Nelson). The initial trial court dismissed their claim, declaring that the clerk had the power to refuse the right of marriage to gay couples. The couple lost again in the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court followed by confirming the ruling. For the next twenty four years, basic human rights were continuously denied nationwide in cases similar to Baker v. Nelson and in anti-gay attempts to restrict homosexual marriage. Eventually, there showed signs of hope such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in May, 1996 and Massachusetts becoming the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in December, 1996. In relatively recent news, the LGBTQ community celebrated a monumental win as the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage a constitutional right for Americans nationwide. On the 25th of June, 2015, many rejoiced this new ruling. Unfortunately, just as many were disgusted at the new legislation. The topic of marriage equality is a unique controversy due to the fact that it gathers so many strong opinions to the cause from many different walks of life.

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 major victory was won by the LGBT community when the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal on June 26th of 2015 across all of the United States. This ruling effectively states that any state-law restricting marriage to male-female is unconstitutional. This had been a fight since the 1970s when the issues of same-sex marriage first began to gain steam. Over the years, various states have legalised same-sex marriage to certain degrees, however it wasn’t until after 3 decades that the issue was finally acknowledged on a national level. This change furthers the ideology of freedom and equality of the american constitution and will invoke the betterment of

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

In the summer of 2015, history was made in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court had made, with a 5-4 majority, a controversial ruling decreeing that denying equal recognition to same-sex couples was in violation of the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those on the minority cited concerns of judicial restraint, the connection between marriage and procreation, and whether or not marriage is a Constitutional issue in the first place. Nevertheless, equal recognition for same-sex couples became the law of the land.

“There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation” (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). Ever since gay and lesbians have been parents people have questioned how the parents’ sexual orientation impacts child and adolescent development. Opponents of same-sex parents argue that sexual orientation has a negative impact on child development, while proponents argue that the relationship between the child and parents is what matters. National, state, and local governments are faced with the controversy surrounding same-sex parenting. People have very strong opinions on both sides of the argument. Children and adolescents who are under lesbian or gay parents have normal child development compared with children under heterosexual parents. These children develop normally socially, mentally, and academically.

The struggle for marriage equality in the United States began in the 1970’s. It became more prominent in 1993 when the Hawaiian Supreme court declared that state’s prohibition against marriage between people of the same sex to be unconstitutional (Weiss, 2013). In response to this, there was significant public outcry and opponents of marriage equality asserted that marriage could only be defined as a union between a man and a woman. This resulted in prohibitive legislation that was enacted in 1996 known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) DOMA prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages (Baker, 2013). DOMA also allowed each state to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Be that as it may, in the 21st century, public and legislative support for marriage equality has grown and various national polls conducted since 2011 show that a majority of Americans support marriage equality (Live Science Staff, 2011; Newport, 2011). On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage. The provision of DOMA, forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages was struck down by the Supreme Court on June 26th of 2013. In the ensuing two years, 36 states, the District of Columbia, 24 Native American Tribal jurisdictions and Guam had legalized same sex marriage. However up

Gay marriage has been one of the most common topic under discussion, arguments and quarrels since couple of years in almost every nation of the world. Looking deep down to the region of United States, same-sex marriage or gay marriage has not been legalized and documented in most of its jurisdictions. However, it is prudent to note that with the beginning of the twenty first century, only a few of US states have legally recognized the gay marriage through court verdicts and legislative proceedings and have lawfully allowed the gay people to get into a relationship (Wolfson 2004).

For this journal entry, I have decided to review the Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage Act, was introduced in 2009, as a repeal to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which deems that the federal government does not recognize marriages of same sex couples. The Respect for Marriage Act was then reintroduced in 2015. The Respect for Marriage Act is a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/29)., amends the Defense of Marriage Act to repeal a provision that prohibited state, territory, possession, or Indian tribe from being required to recognize any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state,

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

Homosexuality in general seems to be more accepted than a few decades ago. However, despite the progress the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) civil right movement has had in recent times, there are still great debates and consequences for the gay community (Slenders, Sieben & Verbakel, 2014). Moreover, a sensitive issue concerning gay marriage and allowing same-sex parenting children evokes great controversies. Thus, qualitative research methods such as interviews, ethnography or focus groups can be appropriate in this area in order to gain insights of people’s opinion such as gay or lesbian parents. Is there a difference in same-sex parenting? Does parental sexual orientation affect child development? This essay will illustrate how qualitative methods can be useful in gathering information, opinions and attitudes of gay couples towards same-sex parenting. This essay will outline two qualitative methods according to this issue and critically evaluate which of the two qualitative methods (ethnography or interviews) could be appropriate in approaching this social issue. In conclusion, the essay will explain why ethnography is a more suitable approach to this topic rather than interview approach.