Sex Marriage License Does Not Violate The Lemon Test

In this article, political implications are given emphasis. To begin with, the same-sex marriages lead to a democratic disrespect. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the point as he opposed the idea in the Supreme Court (Powell, 2015). Concerning the precedent round of litigation Hawaii, Rosenberg and Klarman’s source emphasis has been a significant negative legislative response in Congress and state capitols (Powell, 2015). Despite that, there were other bright electoral consequences as well. These electoral consequences were very but not entirely

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

The Lemon Test, which was created in a case called Lemon V. Kurtzman, consists of three “prongs” (Speich 275). They are that “governmental action be supported by a secular purpose, that it not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and that it ‘not foster “an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.”’” (qtd. in Conkle). In other words, the first “prong” requires the court to question the intent of the government or group in charge of creating the policy; the second prong asks the court to determine the result of the policy and its effects on religion, and the last “prong” asks the court to not complicate the dynamic of the church and the state (Speich 275). The Endorsement test is used after the first two prongs of the lemon test have been verified. First occurring in Lynch V. Donnelly, the Endorsement test states that the “government cannot endorse, favor, promote, or prefer any religious belief or practice” (Speich 277). The test asks the judges if the policy in question merely looks like it endorses religion. The Coercion test, which is sometimes used instead of the lemon test such as in Lee v. Weisman case, asks if the policy tricks members of the minority or “dissenting” religion into participating (Schweitzer; Speich 278).

The controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.

The Establishment Clause guarantees the separation of church and government. Christian Theism is the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear , it was believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion. The Supreme Court established various tests to assess the constitutionality of laws that happened before it. The Lemon Test, has three parts addressing purpose, effect, and involvement. To pass the test, government action must be used only for a secular purpose; cannot promote neither prohibit a specific religion. As well as to not substantially involve government in religious matters. Failure on any one of the three

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

Application/Analysis: The court agrees that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from fraud, but in this instance, the court takes issue with the fact that a sole authority, the secretary of the Public Welfare Council, can decide what is considered a valid religion. The court states that the secretary “is empowered to determine whether the cause is a

“Justice is not to be taken by storm. She is to be wooed by slow advances. Substitute statute for decision, and you shift the center of authority, but add no quota of inspired wisdom.” —— Benjamin N. Cardozo[1]. In the view of many citizens, Supreme Court Justices are like legal machines, interpreting constitution to promise American people of equal justice. Throughout American history, numerous case laws have established the pattern of judicial decisions of U.S., thus making little room for new legislation. However, even Supreme Court Justices are human beings, who can be influenced by various factors. It’s not that simple to determine the inclination of a justice to his or her religious belief, political philosophy and ideology. The essence of judicial process requires a justice to vote under any circumstance based on law, precedents and most important, constitution. No Supreme Court Justice will say that he or she has personal or political

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.

In this article, “Kentucky Clerk Ordered to Jail for Refusing to Issue Gay Marriage License” the author James Higdon focuses on the recent topic of gay marriage. Higdon’s story relates to a Kentucky woman named Kim Davis. Davis was arrested September 3, 2015 because she refused to issue marriage license to a gay couple. “Under questioning from her attorney, Davis went on to express her opposition to same-sex marriage, which she said was ‘not of God’ and contrary to natural law and therefore not something that she could condone” (Higdon). This quote shows that Davis refused to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs. Davis’s religious beliefs are so strong that she continued to fight with the law and the court judge

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

The first part of the lemon test refers to having a secular purpose. This is asking whether or not there is a religious or spiritual basis in the activity or teaching. If the answer is no, then there is not a violation of the law. If it is proven that there is a secular purpose, then it would be in violation of the establishment clause. The second part of the lemon test says that is must neither advance nor inhibit religion. So essentially, religion conversation or discussion should be left out of an activity. This is either in support of, or demonstrative actions towards religion. The third part of the lemon tests says that it must not create excessive government entanglement with religion. If any of these three parts or violated, then the act is in violation of the law (http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrimProc_Public/FreedomOfExpression/FreedomOfReligion&EstCl.asp.)

In “Texas clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.” (2015), Lauren Gambino states that Texas clerks can refuse to issue marriage license to same sex couples, they can justify their refusal on the grounds of religious liberty. Gambino supports her claim by providing factual evidence--including quotes from Texas clerks, which makes her more ethical, because she provides a neutral informative article on this matter. Gambino hopes to inform US citizens of what is going on in Texas, following the same sex marriage legalization by the Supreme Court, while enticing anger

This Court found that the wall between religion and government was substantially breached because “delegating a governmental power to religious institutions inescapably implicates the Establishment Clause.” Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 123 (1982).

Though Sullivan and Bennett both make strong points for their cases against each other, they have many similar aspects to their articles. Both articles make similar evidentiary assertions by adding religion in to their discussions. Sullivan fights that in America there is a separation between church and state and therefore, church should not be added in to a discussion about same-sex marriages. (Sullivan 2002:26) Bennett (2002) makes different comments about this issue. Bennett (2002) believes that gay marriages are an insult to religion and thus should not be allowed in to America’s proper institutions like church. (Bennett 2002:30)