The Issue Of Same Sex Marriage

The United States of America was founded as a secular sanctuary for ideals like freedom, equality, and tolerance – few will argue against that. Over its history American culture has radically evolved as it strived to meet the ideals its nation was based upon, making changes like ending slavery and providing legal equality for women and minorities, changes that at the time seemed absurd but today are unquestionable merits that define what an “American” is. The quest to reach the ultimate utopian society continues today as true Americans fight the evils of ignorance, stubborn bigotry and the fear to change that still manifest themselves in a large portion of U.S. citizens, preventing this nation from moving forward. One of the outstanding minorities still left to be granted the ideals of freedom, equality, and tolerance are homosexuals trying to obtain the right to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, regardless of gender. Same-sex marriages should be recognized in the eyes of the U.S. government in accordance with its responsibility to provide all American citizens equal freedoms.

Marriage has been defined as “the legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of husband and wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.” (Marriage, n.d.) In 1973, Maryland became “the first state to pass a statute banning marriage between same-sex couples.” (Freedom to Marry, 2015) After much debate, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled for a ‘Freedom to Marry’ in all states, even against the states who still had a ban on same-sex marriage. (Freedom to Marry, 2015) Obviously, even with a federal ruling and over thirty years, there is still a

Same-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution. In 1974, The US Supreme Court ruled that: “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.”

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.

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.

One of the fundamental parts of the 14th Amendment is its defense of the peoples’ right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples, then it is an obstruction of gay citizens’ rights to pursue happiness. Many gay citizens cannot be completely happy until they can marry the one they love. In Texas, a ban on same-sex marriage was struck down by federal judge Orlando Garcia. His reason behind fighting this ban was that it “conflict[ed] with the United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.” Moreover, as demonstrated in the 1967 Supreme Court decision that banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional, the government cannot decide who citizens can marry. There is also an element of sexism to the disallowance of same-sex marriage as it is discrimination on the basis of gender to stop a marriage because one party is of the “wrong” gender. Therefore, it is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” guarantee to create laws against gay

This essay debates the issue of same sex marriage in the United States. It considers the pros and cons and examines the constitutional issues involved.

take a stance on homosexuality, these individuals do have certain liberties, just as all persons have liberties unless a legitimate state interest can be found to say otherwise. The Court’s broad sense of “liberty” has opened the door for the inclusion of same-sex marriage to be included in one’s personal liberties. The denials of the benefits that come with marriage have other impacts in the life of the person as they may face tougher medical, economical and familial situations. Having the right to visit an ailing partner in the hospital, buying property and filing taxes together, and decisions to raise children and have legal equal access over those children are just some of the burdens that unmarried same-sex couples face. The only time a liberty is allowed to be taken away from an individual is if there exists a legitimate state interest. There is no rational state interest in same-sex marriage. The protection of family values would

In our Declaration of Independence the founding fathers clearly stated that everyone is entitled to “the pursuit of happiness.” A basic right and something that most people strive for, is the creation of a happy and stable family. Same-sex couples are being left aside this civil right. They can’t pursuit their happiness thru marriage because this contract that goes beyond the emotional connection between

America today is gripped in the controversial debate regarding gay rights; specifically, the right for two people who are of the same sex such as a man and man or woman and woman to be joined in the legal bond of marriage. The points of contention are largely separated into 4 main categories. The sanctity of the institution known as 'Marriage', the benefits gained from being married, family structure, and the growing impact of our society on a religious institution.

The right to same sex marriage has been involved within the Constitution as part of Amendments V, VIII, and XV. Marriage is both global and central. All across our country, in every region, every social class, every race and ethnicity, every religion or non-religion, people get married. Same sex marriage was a division of social and political. An example of a court case dealing with same sex marriage is Baehr v. Lewin. In 1993, Hawaii’s high court issues first-of-a-kind ruling that a barrier to marriage is discrimination, launching the freedom to marry movement. Three years later in 1996, a full trial took place and was decided that the same-sex couples are entitled to marriage licenses. Later in 1998, Hawaii amends its constitution with regard to marriage by exempting same-sex couples from protection of equality guarantee, giving legislature the power to define marriage as limited to a man and a woman. However, a year later in 1999, Baehr v. Lewin Hawaii’s high court rules that Hawaii’s constitution no longer protects lesbian and gay individuals with regard to their freedom to marry. As in today, some states in the United States did not approve the right for same sex marriage. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states. According to the Supreme Court Justice page, “The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to

It is a part of our basic rights that we are given to as citizens and should be implied. According to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, all people are to be considered equal to each other. That should mean that a homosexual couple should have the same right to marry as a heterosexual couple. The denial of a marriage of a homosexual couple shows that we are not equal as people. In fact, that is not happening across the country. According to Rich” The first successful challenge to state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage occurred in 1996, when three Hawaii couples sued the state for the right to marry. The case was decided in favor of the same-sex couples, finding that prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state's constitution. The decision prompted strong opposition from Hawaii citizens, who voted in 1998 to amend the state's constitution with language that restricted marriage to heterosexual couples. The amendment went into effect before the court decision, so the couples were unable to marry (Rich 1).” With this couple's case from Hawaii you see where they should have gained the right to marry but the citizens did not like the idea of it and voted against the

The current major state and federal law that is affecting same-sex marriage is the Defense of Marriage Act , or DOMA as it also called. The Defense of Marriage Act is a federal law that allows each state to recognize or deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same-sex that has been recognized in another state and it also explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." When asking the people that I interviewed what their feelings were towards the Defense of Marriage Act and how it currently affects the issue of same-sex marriage and the interviewees who were for same-sex marriage felt that the law was inherently wrong and the person I interviewed who was opposed to same-sex marriage thought the law was good except for one obvious flaw with it.

Nowadays, the same-sex couples have the right to marry under the constitution, just like any the straight couples, however, on the other hand, the opponents have different beliefs. Most their objection comes from religiosity and conservative backlash. These people believe that a real marriage is between a man and a women, if it comes from two people with same gender, it does not only destroy the norm of traditional marriage and violates natural law, but also oppose the Bible. However, the marriage definition is not about making sex, because it is totally about love. Both the traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are beyond the different religions, philosophies, education levels, financial backgrounds, careers, passions, hobbies, skin colors, so if people love someone enough, they should have the right to marry the one they love. In addition, the same-sex marriage does not against any religions, because all of religions spread

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.