Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal Essay

Can you imagine not being able to share your life with the person you love because of the color of your skin? Well, this was the case for those who resided in Virginia decades ago. Interracial marriages were not allowed in Virginia and sixteen other states due to the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The sole purpose of this act was to completely prohibit a "white person" marrying other than another "white person". Marriage licenses were not issued until the issuing official is content with the applications statements as to if their races are "correct". Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, was not going to let the state of Virginia stop them from being married, so they left

Richard and Mildred Loving were arrested in 1959 for violating South Carolina’s anti-miscegenation statue, barring interracial marriage between people of color and whites. The Lovings, who had to travel hundreds of miles to Washington DC to legally wed in an attempt to appease South Carolina law, were charged and found guilty for "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth" (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). As part of their sentence, the Lovings were forced to leave the state of South Carolina and relocate in Washington D.C. After experiencing the difficulties of living so far away from their friends and family, Mildred Loving wrote to the American Civil Liberties Union who ultimately set the legal proceedings under the argument that the

The Lovings traveled to Washington, D.C. to marry, where interracial marriage was legal, and it was the nation’s capital that they would later return to when they were forced to leave their home. But in 1950s Virginia, their relationship wasn’t that simple. Richard was white and Mildred was black, and in the eyes of the state’s anti-miscegenation laws, they were committing a felony. Find out how a couple in love brought forward the landmark case, Loving v. Virginia, which forever changed the color of marriage in the United

Virginia case successfully outlawed legislation that prohibited members of different races to wed in holy matrimony, despite the fact that society’s view on interracial marriages remained intractable. In 1924, legislation was passed in Virginia that was designed to limit mixed-race relationships, called the Racial Integrity Act. Not only did it try to prevent intermixing, but it also produced two strict racial categories of “colored” and “white” that divided society even more. Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple, fought to repeal that act in 1967 when they were both arrested for getting married, despite Virginia’s ban on marriages between blacks and whites. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the couple knew that they could not legally marry in their state of Virginia, so they went to Washington, D.C, and after “returning to their home state…the couple was charged with unlawful cohabitation and jailed” (ACLU). During the state court trial, the presiding judge, Leon Bazile found the couple to be guilty, justifying his ruling saying “[the] Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents...the fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” After this ruling, Mildred felt compelled to write a letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, asking for assistance fighting this state ruling. Soon, they were referred to the ACLU

On June 2, 1958 Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving went to Washington D.C. to get married and they went back to Virginia a few days later. But because Mildred was of African-American and Native American decent, and Richard was white they were arrested for violating the state law that prohibits interracial marriage. At the time, Virginia was one of 17 states, including Texas and Alabama, that had laws prohibiting interracial marriage (Wolfe). The Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia is an important of part of American history that has had a huge impact on racial equality and has helped change the definition of marriage in the United States forever.

Virginia case consisted of a black and white couple that were married outside of the state. They came to virginia to live there life when they were accused of committing a crime against the law stating black and white people cannot get married. The plead guilty because yes they were in fact married. They were originally sentenced to one year in prison. Later they were given the opportunity to leave the state. Bernard S. Cohen (who was representing the lovings)"... filed a motion in the Caroline County Circuit Court to vacate their 1959 conviction for violating the state law that forbids interracial marriage. He also asks that the two one-year suspended sentences be set aside." as Encyclopedia Virginia put it. That though was in 1963, In 1967 the supreme court unanimously rules out the law as a violation of the fourteenth amendment. That was the ending of the Loving v. Virginia case. I was surprised about this case I believe some aspects of it are in our lives

Richard and Mildred Loving were prosecuted on charges of violating the Virginia state’s ban on interracial marriages, the 1924 Racial Integrity Act. The Loving’s violated Virginia law when the couple got married in Washington D.C., June 1958. The couple returns to their home in Central Point, Virginia. In the early morning hours of July 11, 1958, the Loving’s were awakened by local county sheriff and deputies, acting on an anonymous tip, burst into their bedroom. “Who is this woman you’re sleeping with?” Mrs. Loving answered “I’m his wife.” Richard Loving pointed to the marriage certificate on the wall. The sheriff responded, “That’s no good here.” In the initial proceedings presiding Judge Leon M. Bazile, is credit with saying

Loving v. Virginia originates from the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia in 1967, very many years after Pace v. Alabama. Once again, Anti-Miscegenation Statutes come back into the big picture. This case is landmark in the sense that it presents a constitutional question never presented in the courts in history: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In June of 1958 two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws

In the first chapter of Phyl Newbeck’s book Virginia Hasn’t always been for Lovers: Interracial Marriage Bans and the Case of Richard and Mildred Loving, Newbeck introduces the story of Richard and Mildred Loving, a “white” male and “colored” female who married. Their love was pure and home some. When the two married Mildred did not realize, it was illegal for people of different races to marry in Virginia. The Lovings lived in Central Point, Virginia their entire lives until the state forced them to move out of the state and into Washington D.C, where their marriage was legal. The couple could not even travel into Virginia to visit family without being arrested.

people of the same gender. In the United States only six out of a possible fifty states

Just about everyone has an opinion on legally allowing same-sex couples to marry. The arguments range from personal beliefs to what marriage is said to be in the Bible. Why should a couple be forbidden from showing each other along with family and friends that they are fully committed to each other? What place is it for the government to say that said couple is not allowed to commit to the one who truly makes you happy? Why should these people who are willing to be together for better or worse, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer not get the respect, consideration, and benefits that any opposite sex couple are granted?

Allowing same-sex marriages would change the basic definition of marriage. Marriage is an important commitment of a man and a woman who contribute to civilization. Therefore, the loss of contributions due to someone’s sexual orientation should not be rewarded with a privilege such as marriage. Same-sex marriages affect many factors such as children, the concept of marriage, and humanity. However, it is not a misdemeanor to love somebody of the same gender but it can rigorously damage many aspects of life.

Historic change in American matrimony is especially pronounced in three areas: the equalizing of the respective rights and duties of wives and husbands, the dissolution of marital prohibitions based on race, and the evolution from state-defined grounds for divorce to couple-defined no fault divorce. The most recent area of debate is whether the state should sanction marital consent between same-sex couples. Although such a prospect is unthinkable to some, earlier forms of legal marriage are equally unimaginable now.

I am against the idea of same sex marriage as I have very strong religious beliefs which have shaped me into what I am today and that give me a majority of my reason opposing this matter. I had many long arguments with a bunch of people, including gays and lesbians, about this topic. I can truthfully say that it is because of topics like this that make Gerald M. Nosich’s quote “the relation between emotion and critical thinking is a complicated one, without easy solutions” (Nosich 16) very relatable. In my opinion, “same sex marriage” should not be legalised as this is against what is written in the Bible. This kind of practice will also affect our future generations and the concept of marriage.

Lyrics form the song, "Get Up, Stand Up", by Bob Marley If you listen to the TV or radio talking heads, it would be easy to think that America is permanently in the grip of some major political issue. That there is always some great political division at stake