Same-sex Marriage and Jordan

The movement of the gay and lesbian population in the United States is one that has been in progress since the early 1900s, and is still facing overwhelming controversy and backlash today. The push for gay liberation in a country founded on Christian morals and beliefs has subsequently led to struggles over equality of marriage, adoption, jobs, and healthcare. One side of the controversy argues that every individual deserves the same rights, while the opposing mindset argues that being homosexual puts you into a group of people that is different, and will therefore be treated as such.

“Prejudice and Homosexuality”, by Richard D. Mohr, is an essay about how gays and lesbians are subject to discrimination because of different beliefs. Mohr says that when we are evaluating the morality of behavior is to be prescriptive, or normative, not descriptive. In this essay, Mohr says that “Gays are discriminated against in several ways, including private-sector employment, housing, public accommodations, insurance of all types, custody, adoption, and zoning regulations that bar ‘singles’ or ‘nonrelated’ couples from living together” (Mackinnon 246). I completely agree with him.

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

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

However, this also regards sexuality beliefs. For example, if a homosexual person is working at the nursery, you should not judge him because he has equal rights just like you, and is part of the society just like you.

In the early days of the American government, there was a long struggle between the federalist, and the anti-federalist about the ratification of a constitution for a young nation. During that time, slavery was a source of labor, and commerce for our thirteen states, but this didn’t sit well with these human properties, because they wanted their grievances to be answered. Once it was clear that African-Americans were people who deserve the same rights as others too, it sparked the voices from women who were properties of their spouses. In continuation of all these dilemmas, there was a hidden developing conflict for homosexual rights. The rights that Americans think they are entitled too, must be answered,

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,

The case chosen for this research paper is the case of Lawrence V. Texas. In Houston, Texas police officers were dispatched to a private home, responding to a report of weapon disturbance. Inside the home they found John Lawrence and Tyron Garner engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. The two men were arrested and held overnight and charged with violating Texas law, specifically Texas law made the act of two people of the same sex engaging in certain intimate sexual conduct illegal. The two men were then convicted before a Justice of Peace. Lawrence V. Texas asks the question of whether the criminal convictions of Lawrence and Garner under the “Homosexual Conduct” law of Texas was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was argued

Supreme Court stated that the “Homosexual Conduct” law of Texas was unconstitutional and the law violated the 14th Amendment Due process Clause. This Clause protects  the right to personal freedom in intimate decisions. The issue wasn’t "the right to engage in homosexual sodomy" but  "the right to privacy in the home" and another is "the right to freely engage in consensual, adult sex."

The advancement of the Fourteenth Amendment, as indicated by Eric Foner in “Our Living Constitution”, speaks on how to concede a protected right to security and to keep the administration from forcing on that privilege is the foundation to this decision. Granting without acknowledging that society has considered same sex relations as immoral it does not follow that this is a sufficient

From slaves and immigrants to women and gays, America has struggled with the principle of equality for all people. A principle that is clearly laid out in the 14th amendment of The United States Constitution, “No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” (14th Amendment Section 2) And yet the rights of millions Americans have be infringed upon from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s to even more recent history such as Gay rights. African Americans, Immigrants, women, and homosexuals toil till this day to achieve freedom from discrimination in a country that was built on the idea of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

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.

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

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.

In detail, by the states restricting same-sex marriages, they have breached constitutional rights of gays which is the fourteenth amendment – the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. The Petitioner, James Obergefell and other same-sex couples, further argues that same-sex couples are nonetheless than heterosexual couples. While the Respondent, Richard Hodges and state official argues that “the Constitution does not address it, and therefore it is beyond the purview of the Court to decide whether states have to recognize or license such unions.” (Oyez, 2014).