Summary Of Windsor's Knot

In The Gay Marriage Case, Obergefell v Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decided that a state may not prohibit same-sex marriage. Instead, it emphasized that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to the gay society through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States of America Constitution. The involved decision maker in the case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who gave four primary reasons for his decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision finalized the questions of whether states have the right to pass laws treating marriages differently based upon sex, and if states have to acknowledge the marriage of same-sex couples who were married in another state. On a 5-4 decision, the Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because they cannot be treated differently than opposite sex couples. The court also determined that states have to recognize same-sex marriages the same way they do with opposite-sex. However, the Supreme Court did not create a law about same sex marriage, it just stated that

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

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.

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

Opposed to contrary beliefs, I “hate the sin, but not the sinner.” I will not condone it. I will not vote for it. I will not hate them, and I will not be a bully. I recognize that we live in a nation full of Christians and not a Christian nation which separates the church from the state, but my Christian faith does not agree with the practices of homosexuallity. On top of that, if gay marriage is not a “big deal” then why did people force the Supreme Court embedded gay marriage in the Constitution? With everyone arguing about the Supreme Court decision and that “Same-sex marriage is [now] a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment”, an easy response is to attack the opponent by arguing that what happens under the roof of someone’s home is not the business of the government. My bigger question, however, is if the marital status of two people is not the business of the national government, then why did the Supreme Court have to hear and review to the court case to please the people? Shouldn’t the judiciary branch of the government focus on imposing more important policies for the betterment of the American nation instead of personal

Hodges concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington Post)”. However, the majority opinion went further to find that “the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause have stretched to certain personal choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy, including their intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (Washington Post)”. Using this idea, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples. The ruling has helped gay rights advocates fight more than a hundred and fifteen pieces of legislation that were introduced in state legislatures that were targeting gay people. The majority opinion agreed that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change. “In addition to clearing the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, Friday’s decision may help end discrimination against gays and lesbians in other matters, such as adoption and custody rights, legal experts say (LATimes)”. Gay couples can now have no problem matters when wanting to start a family because of the great decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly twelve years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.“In all his decisions Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes (NYTimes)”. Kennedy makes a great point that the generations before wrote and ratified the Bill

According to DOMA, “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” (sec 3). Until recently 2013, the US Supreme Court finally delivered the verdict that declared section 3 of the DOMA, which is the rejection of right to gay marriage is unconstitutional (Shapiro 208). In “Gay Marriage Is A Fundamental Right” by Nathan Goetting, “The right to many, and to marry the person of one's choice, is a fundamental right and a necessary aspect of human happiness. This has been an explicitly stated abiding principle since the Court used its power of judicial review to strike down as unconstitutional a legislature's definition of marriage in 1967.” Currently, 17 states in the United States have legalized the right to same sex marriage. The realization of DOMA is unconstitutional has further evidenced that gay marriage is one of the civil right that should not be taken away by the government, and it is an inevitable changes that open doors for equality and equity.

The government wants to pass an amendment to the Constitution that would rule gay marriage unconstitutional and therefore illegal. However, is it not true that there is a separation between church and state? How is it that the government can tell the churches, "Look we don't like gay marriage so you can't wed these two."? Is it not up to the church and the ministers to decide this for themselves? Does the government feel that the gays are now the biggest threat to American society? Is that what they have to protect us from? When it comes to protesting the government is even more protective. During the 2005 Presidential Inauguration you had to reserve a spot to protest, and there were many things that were not allowed down the parade route (such as picket signs). Yet isn't it in the US Constitution that it is legal to protest and gather in public. Susan Goering, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland put it best: "Public expression of sincere and deeply felt disagreement with government policies is one of the highest forms of patriotism and the lifeblood of a democracy."

Same sex marriage has been widely looked down upon for ages. People say, “It’s not the traditional constitutional marriage”, or “Children need a mother and a father”. It honestly doesn’t matter. If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry. It’s just as simple as that. What other reason do you need? If two complete strangers of the same sex want to be together for the rest of their lives, we should let them.First, denying some people to marry is discriminatory. Judge Sarah Zabel of Miami-Dade Circuit Court ruled the gay marriage ban of Florida unconstitutional. She stated that it, “serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as 2nd class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society.” In other words, you’re looking down upon same sex couples that want to get married as if they’re lower than you; that they don’t deserve the same rights as us. Same sex couples would be able to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual couples if they were able to be married.Furthermore, the General Accounting Office made an assessment in 2004 about the benefits that heterosexual married couples have that same sex couples could not. Some of these benefits include hospital visitation during an illness and the option of filing a joint tax return to reduce a tax burden. Imagine not being able to see your significant other in the hospital

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservatives are completely against gay marriage and they have stated that they will fight to have the Supreme Court ruling overturned. There are a number of reasons opponents to gay marriage argue that the Supreme Court has made a huge mistake . First, certain religious interpretations maintain that gay marriage is sinful. Fortunately, our country is not a theocracy and public policy should not be based on any religion's values. If a person's religious convictions cause them to believe that gay marriage is wrong, that is personal to them, and that viewpoint should not be thrust onto others. Another argument

Although this concept directly contravenes the both Amendments 10 and 14 of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court has never directly addressed it partially because of the cultural volatility surrounding the debate on gay marriage. However, in their relaxed silence on DOMA, the Supreme Court tacitly condones hundreds of state statutes and state constitutional amendments that irreparably impair gay families everyday.

First, it can clearly be seen that same-sex marriage is primarily about equality. Everyone has equal rights and liberties to chase happiness, as long as it does not cause harm to the society, so why should their freedoms be limits? Why can’t someone be able to marry a person they truly love? Discrimination and banning homosexual couples to get married violates human rights and freedoms. Laws which against gay marriage deny the First Amendment which states that everyone has freedom of speech, expression and religion. Sexual determination is an option, so it is how some people can express themselves.

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the District Court held that the provision in the California Constitution that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Some of the main points that the Court held in this case was that the right to marry protects an individual’s choice of marital partner regardless of gender. Moreover, it was held that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it denies plaintiffs a fundamental right without a legitimate reason. It was also held that Proposition 8 could not withstand any level of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Overall, I

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Should gay marriages be legal? Why should our nation accommodate such a dreadful Supreme Court ruling? Gay couples have become a major problem for our children. Children only repeat what they hear, see, and other habits from their role models. Our children are the ones who are being subjected to these horrifying situations.