Same Sex Marriage

If homosexuals were allowed the right to marry in the eyes of the government, they could take better care of their loved one by health care benefits, increased profit from lower taxes, and supporting them in sickness and in health. As Karasu says, “Studies from researchers such as Kim and McKenry (2002); Marks and Lambert, 1998; and Horwitz et al. (1996) , all support the idea that marriage is more beneficial than any other living arrangement, and there is a cumulative effect in that the longer one stays married, the more benefits

The debate on whether the constitution should be changed to allow gays/lesbians legal status, whereby the partners are protected while in the institution of marriage is a heated debated which has been ongoing in many years. There are those states whereby the rights of gays/lesbians to have legal marriages have been recognized, but in most of the states their right to legal marriage have not been recognized. This essay looks at the reasons why the American constitution should be amended to ensure that all states across the United States recognizes the rights of gays/lesbians to have legal marriages. The argument will focus on the impact that lack of legal marriages have on the gay and lesbian partners and the reasons why constitutional amendment can only be the best solution to resolve the issues of the rights for the gay community to a legal 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.

When Baker and McConnell went to the supreme court they were dismissed again. In 1973 Maryland became the earliest state to ban Gay Marriage. On November 21st, 1976 Wayne Schwandt and John Fortunato walked down the aisle side by side and had what they called a “holy union”. This story was a media firestorm. As spousal rights of gay couples became a bigger issue the nation’s first Domestic Partnership law was passed in 1984. On October 10th, 1987 almost 2000 gay couples were married at the National Mall in Washington, DC. It became known as “The Wedding”. In 1989 the New York State Court ruled that a gay couple living together for at least 10 years can be called a family, this was the first time a state’s court ruled that gay couples could be considered a family. Gay couples in Domestic Partnerships started to receive benefits just like straight couples from employers in Massachusetts and those who worked for Levi Jeans. As more states started to “defend” marriage by banning Gay Marriage such as the states of Hawaii and Utah, Bill Clinton (the current president of the 90’s) signs DOMA (passed 1996). DOMA keeps marriage between one man and one woman, the consequences of that federal law influence 1049 laws that allow eligibility for federal benefits, rights and privileges. In 1997 Hawaii starts to offer Domestic Partnerships benefits to gay couples but did not make them a requirement. But then Hawaii bans gay marriage and so does

Is it okay to not believe in gay marriage, yet at the same time support the constitutional rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for homosexual couples? Even though most churches' beliefs conflict with marrying same-sex partners, government should not deny a person's right to their happiness; because any person, no matter race, color, sex, religion or sexual orientation, should be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights as Americans to pursue their happiness; and married gay couples should be able to have a spectrum of rights and benefits if their gay partnership is legalized.

There are roughly 313,900,000 people living in the United States and within those people roughly 9,000,000 people categorize as either lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (gates). This statistic was calculated throughout many surveys issued in 2010 throughout all states in the United States. These statistics were presented in an article written by Gary J. Gates in April of 2011. Now that it is currently almost the year 2014 the number of homosexuals have only risen in the past few years due to the legalization of same sex marriage throughout some states. Same sex marriage is becoming a well-known controversy in the United States due to complete opposite opinions. Society often examines the changes throughout the years in terms of consequences rather than in benefits. The legalization of same sex marriage is often portrayed as consequential to society however when examined more closely there would be more benefits to society if this controversy was viewed in terms of positive change. Benefits society could achieve from legalization of same sex marriage are providing new economic and business opportunities, and encouraging equal opportunity and a non-discriminatory society.

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

Lewin took place in Hawaii. It is thought to be the first major victory for same-sex couples and marriage activists. Nina Baehr sued the state of Hawaii saying that the state was refusing to give her and her partner a marriage license, she argued this on the grounds of saying that this was equal to discrimination. Since the state had an Equal Rights Amendment, the state would need to find a compelling interest in supporting such a ban. One of the biggest impacts from this ruling was not only giving hope to same-sex couples hoping to marry but the ruling also discouraged people who hoped to keep same-sex marriage illegal. Through the Full Faith and Credit Clause this also meant that if these couples were legally married in Hawaii then their marriage had to be recognized in all other states as

This essay debates the issue of same sex marriage in the United States. It considers the pros and cons and examines the constitutional issues involved.

In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court heard the case Baher vs. Lewin, and decided that Hawaii’s ban on same-sex marriage was not permitted by the state constitution (ABC-Clio). That court transferred the case to a trial court for a final decision. Although the decision, which was to amend the state constitution to “reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples,” wasn’t made until after the Defense of Marriage Act was put into place, many people against same-sex marriage were worried Hawaii would become the first state to legalize gay marriage. Bob Barr, a Republican Georgia Representative, would then introduce the Act in May 1996 (Nelson). The bill passed the House in July of that year and the Senate that September, both with an overwhelming

In the past few years all 50 states have legalized same sex marriage. The problem is same sex marriage is still not widely accepted in this American society. When people are getting arrested because they refuse to do their job and give out gay marriage licences that means there is a problem with the way that same sex couples are being treated. Gay marriage is a major hot button issue in America right now. To allow marriage or to not allow marriage has evoked a large argument that has caused many riots and problems. Gay marriage is the right for two people of the same gender to marry. But what most people do not think about is the benefits of marriage to this community of people. Society should work harder on accepting same sex marriage because it is not just about being happy (but that is a benefit), but it is a matter of decisions over life or death, money, and the life of children.

Same-sex marriage, a controversial social issue in the U.S. for several decades, is constantly evolving. When viewed historically, great change has happened in a short period of time, in the movement for same-sex marriage, given that until recently, no society in thousands of years has ever allowed it.

It thus prevents people from thinking that same-sex marriage makes homosexuals sinners. Marriage is a right that should be afforded to every individual whether they are gay or straight. Same-sex marriage thus helps solidify the appropriate social norm of sexual restraint and care-giving within the family. Legalizing same-sex marriages would be good for America as it would spur equality, promote family stability and validate LGBT family units as well as increase the number of children successfully adopted. Allowing gay marriage would be important in providing financial boon for both the private sector and state governments. Gay couples inject a considerable amount of money in the economy while spending on marriage

The legalization of same-sex marriage is a hot topic in the U.S. approving, it in all fifty states can be harmful to the country. Same-sex marriage should not have been legalized in the United States. First, legalizing can be harmful to the society, Second, same-sex marriage it always denies a child a father or a mother, Third, legalizing It Offends some religions and violates tradition. In addition, It means all citizens should have understood of the consequences before making the decision.

Some may argue that same sex marriage would bring in more tax money but in reality “The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Dec. 17, 2009 that extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees would cost the