Should Marriage Be Left To The States? Essays

Last, and most important, is that studies have not shown that more hours spent on homework leads to more knowledge. Time spent on homework does not correlate to better test scores. Some students can spend twice as much time as others and still not do as well. Grades do not necessarily improve with more hours of homework.

In a very real sense, it is reasonable to argue that the government should have no say at all in the processes of marriage, or decide which adults may or may not legally marry. State and federal governments play a role, of course, in that marriage is a civil union, and provides benefits and legal protections for the couple. Historically, marriage serves the interests of the society by promoting stability and future generations of citizens, and governments usually act in ways to promote this very vital element. At the same time, it is highly questionable whether this governmental authority should have any voice in who chooses to marry, provided those involved are adults and wish to do so. This is in fact, at the heart of the same-sex

Although there are 14 states that have not legalized same-sex marriage or strictly placed laws against same-sex marriage, they will eventually have to secede to the Supreme Court’s decision

As the numbers of gay couples have risen exuberantly in the last two decades, they no doubt

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

The judges based their decision on the principle of equality of all before the law. The 14th Amendment requires a state to celebrate a marriage between two persons of the same sex. According to US constitutional law, each US state has its own Constitution, but it is above all the US Federal Constitution. To date 37 of the 50 American states, as well as the District of Columbia, recognized gay marriage. Now, the 14 American states that still refuse to unite two persons of the same sex will not only have to marry

Are the Fifth Amendment rights of same-sex couples legally married under their state laws, rightfully denied equal protection under federal law?

The Court further noted the relationship between the liberty of the Due Process Clause and the equality of the Equal Protection Clause and determined that same-sex marriage bans violates the latter. Concluding that the liberty and equality of same-sex couples was significantly burdened, the Court struck down same-sex marriage bans for violating both clauses, holding that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all fifty states. Due to the "substantial and continuing harm" and the "instability and uncertainty" caused by state marriage laws varying with regard to same-sex couples, and because respondent states had conceded that a ruling requiring them to marry same-sex couples would undermine their refusal to hold valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, the Court also held that states must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other

Judge Moore informed probate judges on the eve of the historical same-sex marriage decision that the federal ruling did not apply to them. Later on, in a separate ruling, it was ordered that the many of the counties that were holding back from marrying same-sex couples were to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Still Judge Moore says he stands firm in that while the court can authorize same-sex marriages but they cannot force a constitutional officer to disobey his oath by doing so (Elliott, 2015). Federal district judges held the law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman unconstitutional (Eastman, 2015). However, the United States Supreme Court met and ratified Chief Justice Moore’s stance.

For this journal entry, I have decided to review the Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage Act, was introduced in 2009, as a repeal to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which deems that the federal government does not recognize marriages of same sex couples. The Respect for Marriage Act was then reintroduced in 2015. The Respect for Marriage Act is a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/29)., amends the Defense of Marriage Act to repeal a provision that prohibited state, territory, possession, or Indian tribe from being required to recognize any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state,

On April 28. 2016, The supreme court heard arguments in obergefell v. hodges over whether or not gay marriage should be a right guaranteed by the US. Constitution and also whether or not gay marriages performed in states where it has been legalized must be recognized in states where it was banned. On Friday, June 28, 2016, The court ruled 5-4 that gay marriage is a constitutional right. Being a constitutional right all 50 states must allow it and current bans are invalid. Even though same sex marriage is legal, There are still 13 states banning to marry same sex. These 13 states includes Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

In 2004, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, the District of Columbia and two Native American tribal jurisdictions have legalized same sex marriages. As the years go on, more and more same sex couples will continue to fight for their right to marry who they choose and more states will eventually allow same sex couples their rights to marry whomever they choose (Koppelman, 2004).

Gay marriage is a very talked about topic in are country that shouldn’t be ignored. I believe men and women should be able to love freely and not be shamed by it. Marriage is a great factor in the United States. To some people it’s what we live for; is to get married and start a family. To not give everyone the same opportunity to have a happy marriage and family is unlike us. This problem is bringing a lot of hate, the same hate that was used in racial discrimination so why not give gays equal rights like everyone else. Andrew Sullivan wrote a article that shares his experiences of coming out and being accepted. When puberty hit he started to realize he wasn’t the same. He knew that his marriage is not going to be the same as his

While seventeen states have already granted couples the right to marry whom they love regardless of gender, the rest of the country continues to forbid same-sex couples to marry (Ahuja) and in doing so, infringe upon one of the most basic freedoms we are allowed. Arguments for same-sex marriage, despite being backed up with hard legal evidence and Supreme Court rulings, continue to face opposition on the grounds of religious beliefs and personal values.

The institution of marriage provides for a set of rights and obligations of one party towards the other party. Co-habiting is a symbol of this shared living and separation a negation of this essential quality of marriage.[ 1st Report of the Law Commission, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, para 6.5. ] The right to consortium is an essential marital right. In protection of this right, all personal laws provide for a remedy to implement the cohabitation and establish the right. In furtherance of this Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides for the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights i.e. restoration of parties’ martial privileges like that of comfort and consortium of one another[ Ela Dasu v. Ela Lachamma, (1990) 2 HLR 249 (Ori).]. Herein the parties are legally enforced to live together and fulfill the marital obligations by obtaining a court decree by the aggrieved party against the deserting party.