Same-Sex Marriage : Religious Freedom Vs. Marriage Equality

In the case of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights are just restrictions on the federal government alone. To prevent the states from limiting rights granted to the citizens in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment was passed. The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves after the American Civil War. It was severely contested, especially by the states of the Confederacy that were defeated and were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment’s first section includes many clauses, but one important one is the Equal Protection Clause. This clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. The clause has also been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. Eventually, selective incorporation occurred in which the civil liberties granted in the Bill of Rights were applied to the states on a case-by-case basis through the 14th Amendment. Now, the same liberties that were granted to the federal government, were now enacted with the state governments. Same-sex marriage is one of these fundamental rights, rights that require a high degree of protection from government

Individuals in America possess many freedoms that individuals in foreign countries like China, South Korea, and Afghanistan do not have access to. The liberties granted by the First Amendment gives people the right to express their personal and religious beliefs without interference from the Government. The protection given to the people by the First Amendment stops the Government from becoming too strong or monarchical, a fear that comes from the oppressive rule of Great Britain that the Founding Fathers desperately wanted to avoid happening again. The preservation of individuals expressing their political, religious, or personal beliefs is an important right of American citizens that should not be overlooked. A recent illustration of the First Amendment in use for individuals can be seen with the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. The Court ruling directly impacts individuals by giving people the legal right to have same-sex marriages.

Local Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) are controversial in nature, because while they pretend to use the excuse to protect the free exercise of religion, intrinsically it is an avenue to attack same sex marriages which have been ruled constitutional by most circuit appellate courts in the United States. Currently the Supreme Court is hearing the cases that might ultimately decide the faith of marriage equality. United States v. Windsor opened the door for most federal appellate jurisdictions and some states to rule that prohibiting same-sex marriage was constitutional, on the basis of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Despite this decision, the right to marriage is not an explicit protection addressed by the Constitution, and is often seen as a right delegated to the States under the 10th Amendment. On the other hand the free exercise clause is part of the First Amendment, and protects people from doing things that violate their religious principle, for example a Christian doctor from performing an abortion.

In a hypothetical scenario in which same-sex marriage and religious freedom are brought to a legal confrontation, the constitutional rights of both plaintiffs and defendants bring forth a nationwide debate on civil liberties and rights—yet it is easy to mistake one for the other. In this scenario, after lesbian couples Donna and Theodora married in the state of Massachusetts instead of North Carolina (Theodora’s home state), both decided to move to North Carolina in the city of Clinton where they found jobs to financially support one another. However, when both couples contacted a local bakery shop for a wedding cake, they were denied by the shop’s owner who cited North Carolina’s recently enacted law that allows businesses to refuse the patronage of homosexuals when the business owners themselves have a religious objection to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. When Donna and Theodora tried to hire a photographer for when they planned to recite their wedding vows, the photographer refused—with the issue of religious freedom again been cited in her arguments. Although this initially didn’t come as a surprise to Donna and Theodora, Donna was more concerned about the maid of honor, Bernice, a transgender person being able to use the women’s restroom. Because Bernice was born male, under the rules of House Bill 2—more formally addressed as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (aka “the bathroom bill”)—that would exclude Bernice from using the bathroom of her choice

Judging from this article from Wall Street Journal, the major conflict that exists in this same-sex-marriage-legalization debate is between the free-speech clause and antidiscrimination law. Technically, the people who refused to offer their service to the homosexual people based on their religious belief were not legally wrong according to the first amendment. However, did the homosexual couples do anything wrong? No, they didn’t. They ordered the same services, and they were willing to pay the same amount of money. What they wanted was nothing illegal. Then here comes the dilemma, how can neither of them be “wrong” in a conflict? So, this paper will analyze the “rightness” and the “wrongness” in an ethical dilemma between civil rights

Although gay marriage has been legalized in all of the United States, the idea is still heavily debated. Richard Fitzgibbons, one of the various authors of the book Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints (Homosexuality is Caused by Psychological Trauma, p.36) believe that in order to get rid of pain, a person can be overcome by strong, erotic desires and actions, however, this does not entirely make sense. If a man were to be sexaully assaulted by another man, they would, more than likely remain straight, considering they were hurt by someone of the same sex.

Civil marriage is enjoyed by all people in society; all people that is, excluding the ones that find love in the form of their own gender. These people are being denied the basic right of engaging in legally bound matrimony. Laws, such as this one, have been created time and time again, mostly by ignorant bigots, only to be dissolved when finally seen as immoral and unjust in the eyes of someone without hatred in their heart. It should be considered a crime in itself to deny access to an institution that has no one true concrete definition; but instead much diversity, which America has depended on and built from for over a 1000 years. There are at least

From the point of view of Gallagher, marriage is to give a child a mother and a father and to raise them in the best environment possible. She argues that when men a women have a kid and are not married or stay married the family structure falls apart and then is when many bad things happen to more kids like: poverty, welfare dependence, child abuse, sexual abuse, physical illness, infant mortality, homicide, premature and promiscuous sexuality, juvenile delinquency, educational failure, conduct disorders and adult criminality and many others. This is also when children suffer and communities pay the consequences with crime. This is why she thinks that having a good family structure meaning one father and one mother is so important. She

On June 26, 2015, same-sex marriage was legalized across the united states, due to a decision the Supreme Court made; the decision made all state level bans on same-sex marriage were considered unconstitutional, thus overruling the bans. In the dissenting argument on the Supreme Court’s Decision to legalize same-sex couple marriage, Chief Justice Roberts makes a passionate argument revolving around the fact that it was the Supreme Court that made the decision and not the Country.

The largely debated topic of same-sex relationships have been on the forefront of all U.S. citizen’s minds, including and more specifically of those in the branches of legislature. More states today have begun passing laws that accept and recognize marriage for this population. This minority group, in some opinions, has been at a disadvantage when it comes to marriage equality. Previous studies have explored this great debate in the United States beginning in the 1970s. The Minnesota Post published a case where University of Minnesota students, Richard John “Jack” Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a marriage license in Hennepin County Minnesota. The application was denied because the applicants both were men. Baker and

conclusions which declare that every generation after the Salient Generation (1928-45) is more in favor of same-sex marriage. The primary component here is that “younger generations express higher levels of support for same-sex marriage” (Mitchell). As far as reflecting the change in attitudes, the data shows that older generations “have become more supportive of same-sex marriage in the past decade” (Mitchell). In relation to Lewis and Gossett’s research, their research aligns in their claim that people “born in each decade tend to be more accepting of gay relationships and more willing to grant them legal recognition than those born the decade before” (Lewis and Gossett). The patterns of the research support the claim that the factor of

"Marriage should be between a spouse and a spouse, not a gender and a gender” (Hertzberg). Same sex marriage is no longer a question of the legality of the subject; instead, people are now focusing on the aftermath of same sex marriage being legal. The legality of same sex marriage has forced multiple businesses a-nd religious organizations to adapt to the new ways of America in order to better suit the people of this great nation; however, not everyone is on board with the new movement including multiple people who refuse to serve the same sex community and their rights as citizens of the United States of America. The only way America can move on from its dark past is if the people of America can get over the fact that religion never promoted hatred and violence against others who did not seek it out. Religion was put in place to impose a better future for those who believe in a greater being that looks over us all. Religion might state to not agree with homosexuality; however, it also states that society must love and accept thy neighbor for who they are and not discriminate towards them or what they stand for. In the constitution, the first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (The Bill of Rights). Therefore, to refuse same sex couples, whether it be applying to get marriage license, applying to marry in a church, the right for joint federal tax returns, joint bank accounts,

Today’s society is all about controversy, whether it is political controversy or social controversy, society thrives on it. What is more controversial in today’s society than same sex marriage? It is a topic that has battered Americans for decades, and just recently has it been decided that same sex marriage and relations is awarded by the constitution. Before this it was at states discretion whether or not to allow those of the same sex to marry. But, on June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that the constitution gave legal rights to same sex couples to marry in all 50 states where prior to that only 37 states had legalized same sex marriage. (Freedom to Marry Inc.) So, what about those 13 other states, how did they feel about this

“If anyone objects, speak now or forever hold your peace!” Right now you, the reader, are probably confused. Let me elaborate for you. Many people have moral issues on same-sex marriages. In this paper you will read an overview of two academic articles that apply to the issue at hand. Then, I will apply two ethical theories to the issue. Finally, I will give my own opinion and where I stand on the issue.

The issue of same-sex marriage is an extremely controversial topic within Ireland. The discussion reached its zenith on May 28th, 2015, when the predominately Roman Catholic Republic of Ireland became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote. Additionally, the issue divided the population of Ireland into two corners: those who were pro-family versus those who were pro-marriage. Pro-family citizens opposed the marriage equality referendum and the pro-marriage side supported it. A question the pro-family side was forced to consider in the aftermath of the referendum was, does this “victory” come at the cost of undercutting the integrity of the moral fabric of Irish society? Two articles reported on the implications of this monumental event on May 29th of this year. The first article is from Mass Resistance and has no stated author. The other article is written by Conor Payne on Socialist alternative’s website. Although both websites deal with the same event, with further analyzation, major similarities and differences in each site 's credibility, purpose, and intended audience are revealed.