Same Sex Marriage Is An Inflammatory Issue In Today’S Political

In the case of Jones v. Massachusetts, Michael Jones, an employee of the Sussex County, MA clerk’s office refused to issue a marriage liscense to a same sex couple based on his religious beliefs. His supervisor terminated him from his job, and issued the marriage liscense personally. Jones brought this termination to court as a violation of his first amendment right to religious freedom. The following is a compilation of the evidence and logic that supports not only that this claim is constitutionally valid, but that the precendents the court has set also approve this notion.

Facts: In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the California Constitution. In response, California voters passed Proposition 8, amending the State Constitution such that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.” The California Supreme Court held that Proposition 8 was properly enacted under state law. Respondents (Perry et al.) are two same sex couples who wish to marry, and filed suit to challenge Proposition 8 in Federal Court. The suit named various state officials as defendants, yet they did not defend nor appeal any subsequent ruling in court. The federal district court allowed the official proponents (Hollingsworth et al.) of the Proposition to intervene

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

“How Democratic Is the American Consitution?” written by Robert A. Dahl is a novel that’s main purpose is to “suggest changes in the way we think about our constitution” (Dahl 2003, p.1). Robert A. Dahl revolves his book around a few questions. However, the main focus of all the questions are “why should we Americans uphold our constitution” (Dahl 2003, p.1)? This question is asked because he questions why we uphold something that was written more than two centuries ago. He also questions how democratic our society is because of our constitution. Dahl examines the fact that some Americans have no problem with the constitution as it is today and then he also states that some find it to lack in some crucial areas. Dahl explains that there are seven crucial areas in which the constitution lacks democracy. These include: slavery, suffrage, election of the president, choosing senators, equal representation in the Senate, Judicial power, and Congressional power.

For more than decades the court has continued to be pivotal in some of the biggest decisions for the social identity of America. Specifically noting that for many years the majority of Americans supported things that shaped the identity of American history (i.e. Slavery, Gay marriage, Sodomy, etc.). Erwin Chemernisky continues to examine whether the courts roles in major social issues have failed the American people or not. Erwin continues to explain that the supreme courts failures culminated together, are not only a failure for race issues in America, but also a failure to interpret the constitution effectively (21). These broad generalizations of the court flourish throughout his book, however, it is final assessment of the court that leaves the most to be contended with. Specifically noting that overall the court has done way more harm than good with regards to addressing minority issues an in wake of the warren court has continued to make flawed decisions in favor of the majority (53). This rhetoric must be addressed and analyzed by first looking to professor Erwin’s view of the courts take on minority, secondly analyzing his take on the court before and after the warren era and lastly addressing his support and analysis of the purpose of judicial review. Through this analysis it will become evident that Erwin Chemernisky has misinterpreted the supreme courts position as a protector of minority rights instead of the upholder and interpreter of the constitution and law.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court removed the ban on same-sex marriage nationwide. On July 15, 2015, Kenneth Jost published an article named “Will there be more gains after marriage ruling?” In this article, Jost discusses the viewpoints of the general public and argues that there may still be a struggle to gain full rights and respect for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The article covers the reaction of the public on June 26, along with politicians stand-points on the subject, and the Caitlyn Jenner controversy. Jost’s main argument is that LGBT people are not being protected by the government, even though they have gained the right to marry.

As a general rule, constitutional law examination differs depending on the nature of the right that is being asserted in a case. In the Constitution people have various rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Other rights in the Constitution are not presented in the Constitution, but they are arguably stated within its context. In this paper I will agree that the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges was right in affirming the equal rights of same-sex couples based on the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Court’s ruling in this case has an effect on the legal rights of children of same-sex couples, the rights of people who identify as gay, and the states’ sovereign right to enact legislation that defines

The history of LGBTQ+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. LGBTQ+ identities that are accepted by people outside that community change with time, as some identities establish themselves as commonplace while others are just being introduced to non-LGBTQ+ people. However, rights and acceptance for the LGBTQ+ community are nearly always tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQ+ rights issues are controversial, everyone deserves to be equally protected under law regardless of sexual orientation. Likewise, the Fourteenth Amendment’s

The history of LGBTQIA+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. The identities within the LGBTQIA+ community that are accepted have shifted over the years as the majority of the population comes to understand some identities to be commonplace and struggles to understand others. However, the gaining of rights and acceptance by the LGBTQIA+ community has nearly always been tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQIA+ rights issues are controversial, the statute that convicted John Lawrence and Tyson Garner for having private, consensual gay sex as well as the means of conviction are clearly unconstitutional on several grounds,

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.

Chief Justice Roberts made a principal dissent, claiming that in just one day, the court has transformed the societal institution of marriage that has banded humanity together for millennia. Roberts made clear that no consensus is worth a decision he feels completely overstepped the Supreme Court’s constitutional bonds, stating “Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner…but do not celebrate the constitution”. Roberts repeatedly insists that history and tradition must be drawn on to come to a conclusion, and judges ought not to rely on his or her own moral judgement concerning the morality of whether denying the fundamental rights would be unjust in light of the constitution. Although Roberts’ does agree that same-sex couples who have previously challenged state laws excluding them from marriage “make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness” , he ultimately believes that the Constitution cannot decide what is fair and what is just.

In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).

In his book The Hollow Hope, Gerald Rosenberg’s thesis concerning law and social change is that the courts are ineffective in creating significant social reforms. His main claim is that the courts are too weak to overcome their lack of constitutional rights, their apprehension to make unpopular rulings, and their lack of judicial enforcement powers (Rosenberg). In his view, Rosenberg assesses that under the right legal and social conditions these constraints can be overcome, but ultimately he concludes that the courts can only bring about the illusion of change, stating that, “U.S. courts can almost never be effective producers of significant social reform. At best, they can second the social reform acts of the other branches of government” (Rosenberg 422). Regarding same sex marriage, Rosenberg’s assessment is that while proponents of same sex marriage had the necessary elements to produce social reform, they turned to the courts too early and as a result, the litigation campaign resulted in “one step forward, two steps back” (Rosenberg 368).

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 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.