The Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage Essay

In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).

In recent years, the debate over same-sex marriage has grown into a nationwide controversy, reverberating into the halls of congress, at the white house, in dozens of state and legislature and courtrooms, and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at both the national and state levels. As the debate rages on, the American religious community remains deeply divided over the issue, and over the morality of homosexuality. The debate has grown from an issue that occasionally arose in a few states to a national and even worldwide controversy.

The Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia (1967) resulted in the striking down of state laws that prohibited whites and African Americans from marrying. Mildred Loving, one of the parties in the case, issued a statement on the fortieth-anniversary of her case in which she urged that same-sex couples be allowed to marry.

As noted, the technical legal question to be addressed is whether the federal government or individual states have the right to legalize or prohibit same-sex marriage. To claim that this exact question is increasingly a public concern is to understate the issue. It may be ironic but, as the controversy has grown in recent years, there seems to be more of a demand from the society that the issue be settled once and for all, and for that eyes turn to federal authority. This came to a head in the presidential campaigns of 2013, as same-sex marriage became a “hot button” issue actually defining voter sympathies as either liberal or conservative (Levendusky 42). In plain terms, the Mitt Romney campaign directly appealed to conservative populations opposed to, or perceived as opposed to, gay marriage; the Obama reelection efforts not unexpectedly countered this with an appeal to more liberal factions, which typically favor same-sex unions. The differences in approach aside, the clear fact remains that the nation was emphatically looking to its highest leadership to make a decision, which in turn would lead to federal recognition or denial of same-sex marriage.

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.

Historically, the same sex marriage movement can be traced back to the early 1970’s, when gay rights activists begun the movement by bringing forward three suits in Minnesota, Kentucky, and Washington, but none of the suits were successful (Rosenberg). Following these actions in 1986, the case of Bowers v. Hardwick was brought before the Supreme Court

Before this case, a number of states had anti-miscegenation statues in place, criminalizing love in the name of racism. This case brought an end to the acceptance of scientific racism in the realm of marriage in that showed such legislation not as sound or logical but as hateful and unconstitutional. Loving’s legacy is strong even today, as it played a pivotal role in the groundbreaking same sex marriage case, Obergefell V. Hoges, paving away for the legalization of gay marriage. Without this case and the intervention of the federal government, states could have very well continued their practice of anti-miscegenation policies. The atrocities committed upon the Lovings and the millions of couples affected by such hateful policies are an embarrassment to our nation’s history. This case acted as a federal resolve to past and future Americans fighting for the right to love. Loving V. Virginia led the nation away from its dark past and towards a more equal future, filled not with “scientific” defenses for racism but with scientific defenses against

The first spark to set flames to the waging war on marriage equality happened on October 15, 1971. In the Supreme Court case of Baker v. Nelson on October 15, 1971, one of three cases brought forth by same-sex couples, Richard Baker and James Richard McConnell were denied a marriage license by a county court clerk in Minnesota in May of 1970 (Minnesota Legislature, 1971, Richard John Baker and Another v. Gerald R. Nelson). The initial trial court dismissed their claim, declaring that the clerk had the power to refuse the right of marriage to gay couples. The couple lost again in the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court followed by confirming the ruling. For the next twenty four years, basic human rights were continuously denied nationwide in cases similar to Baker v. Nelson and in anti-gay attempts to restrict homosexual marriage. Eventually, there showed signs of hope such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in May, 1996 and Massachusetts becoming the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in December, 1996. In relatively recent news, the LGBTQ community celebrated a monumental win as the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage a constitutional right for Americans nationwide. On the 25th of June, 2015, many rejoiced this new ruling. Unfortunately, just as many were disgusted at the new legislation. The topic of marriage equality is a unique controversy due to the fact that it gathers so many strong opinions to the cause from many different walks of life.

Chief Justice Roberts made a principal dissent, claiming that in just one day, the court has transformed the societal institution of marriage that has banded humanity together for millennia. Roberts made clear that no consensus is worth a decision he feels completely overstepped the Supreme Court’s constitutional bonds, stating “Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner…but do not celebrate the constitution”. Roberts repeatedly insists that history and tradition must be drawn on to come to a conclusion, and judges ought not to rely on his or her own moral judgement concerning the morality of whether denying the fundamental rights would be unjust in light of the constitution. Although Roberts’ does agree that same-sex couples who have previously challenged state laws excluding them from marriage “make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness” , he ultimately believes that the Constitution cannot decide what is fair and what is just.

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.

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

A metamorphosis in how the American judicial system perceives same-sex marriage, has developed over the past forty years. In October, 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

The political aspects of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to federal and government recognized marriages are a very complex issue. There are basically two sides to the political argument of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. On one side are the liberals who feel that marriage is a civil right that should be denied based on the basis of a person's sexual orientation. On the other side you have conservatives who feel that marriage is an institution in which should only constitute one man and one woman. In this report we are going to examine how the issue of same-sex marriages are affecting our current political environment, how politics is affecting the movement for

Same sex- marriage is still the topic of many peoples conversation across the country. Citizens, divided by politic party, are very passionate about how they feel about it. The president didn’t approve of it at first, but now he finally accepts same- sex marriage, the Judicial System uses its power to dictate to the States, forcing them to accept same- sex marriage. Both houses of Congress continue to debate what marriage means.

By deconstructing the common comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage, she intends to defend her view that interracial marriage is not a slippery slope decision that will roll down hill in an out of control manner and head for the worst like, she claims, same-sex marriage will. Opposing Barber’s views, Quindlen wrote an essay in 2008 entitled: “The Loving Decision” where she sets forth her support for same-sex marriage by constructing a comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. She uses this comparison to suggest that same-sex marriage will, too, be validated by the courts because “the world only spins forward” (258). Even though Barber and Quindlen stand on opposite sides of the debate with views clashing on fundamental concepts like the meaning of marriage, the nature of homosexuality, and the applicability of the Loving v. Virginia court case to the issue, in various areas the two authors have common ground.