The Issue Of The State Constitution On Same Sex Marriage Rights

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).

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.

Most would equate their struggle and first for equality to gay marriage. This is mostly due to so much acceptance of those individuals that do not fit the mold of the typical monogamous man and women marriage. We are far from a city that is accepting of this union or are we? Recently families who practice polygamy have been in the public increasingly. Modern day television series such as the Sister Wives follows a family in a polygamous union who documents their day to day life and the struggle that we mentioned in the previous paragraph. This family lives their life in peace which reverts back to my stance on the issue in which the laws that currently exist around polygamy unions are good as they are. Reporter Amy Robek of the 20/20 news show reported on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints Polygamy Compound in a documentary titled “Secrets of the Mormon Cult: Breaking Polygamy”. This documentary was filmed after the prosecution of the cult leader of the FLDS compound Warren Jeff’s. They got a rare inside look on what life is like within compounds, shedding light to outsiders the daily operations and schedules the sheltered people. What they discovered was these families are hold a lower standard of education, health care, and nutritional values. From

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.

I join the opinion of the court in favor of Hodges and offer these accompanying thoughts. In order to determine if the state is required under the Fourteenth Amendment to license a marriage of same sex, we must establish a foundation in regards to marriage and its entitlements. The court argues that marriage “is not a fundamental right,” and with this conclusion, the state is not be required to legally recognize any marriage it does not see fit. Fundamental rights are due strict scrutiny, but issues of liberty interest only require rational basis. There is a significant difference between the two approaches with ‘rational basis’ only requiring that the law be related to a government interest. “Rational basis” review is generally used in cases where fundamental rights are of issue and is thus fitting for this case under these assumptions.” The constitution does not specifically list marriage as a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights or any of its additional amendments and thus leaves ample room for interpretation of is significance. The defense attempts to use the Fourteenth amendment in their defense as it asserts,

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

In the article, "An embrace that swayed the Mormon Church on gay rights”, the author Maria La Ganga, discusses the political issues between the Mormons and LGBT community. The Mormon officials and LBGT members of the community came together in Salt Lake City to pass a anti-discrimination law for the LGBT community. The policy contains anti-discrimination laws for the LGBT community and exemptions for Mormon doctors who have religious beliefs against homosexuals, to refuse doing artificial procedures for homosexual couples. In addition to anti-discrimination laws, the LGBT members tried to reach an agreement with the Mormon Church officials in passing a law in favor of gay marriage and homosexual couples to have ownership as a biological parent

In a past session the legislature passed protections for members of the clergy who might be pressured into performing marriages that conflict with their beliefs that are protected by the First Amendment. Similar protections extend to others who might encounter the same pressure. Also in

The problem with the issue of gay marriage is being faced across the country. This issue has grown in popularity as we have progressed through our stages of taboo to acceptance of gays and their lifestyle. The media and remodels have expressed their acceptance of the issue by exploring the lifestyle and publicizing it. Now California has moved to the forefront of modern attempts to eliminate the codified restrictions on their life. With a high gay population and being one of the most populated states California has been the foreground for the step to make gay marriage deemed unconstitutional.

It wasn’t until October 12, 2007, that governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill approved by state law makers that would legalize gay marriage. On May 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution protects a fundamental “right to marry” that would also extend to same sex marriage. The people were outraged saying that same sex marriages went against their religion on their views of a traditional marriage. People also argued that gay marriage went against the constitution as well because people could no longer have free exercise of religion. According to the Huffington Post, gay marriage, “Protects the free expression of religion, as supporters of Proposition 8 were worried that Gay Rights advocates were not affording them the same courtesy-to live and believe as they please-as the Gay and Lesbian community was/is demanding.” All these events eventually lead to picketing against gay marriage and the voice of the American people was starting to be heard on this

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

Aside from a small gay Mormon organization referred to as, Affirmation, a religious group such as Catholics and Mormons heavily promoted California 's Proposition 22. The Catholic Church, The Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church) are not only against same-sex marriages, but homosexual relationships in general. They believe that it goes against the word of Jesus to love a member of the same gender. Certain clergies do marry homosexuals, depending on their opinion. Due to the separation of church and state, each individual place should have the right to choose. However, new laws

As we know, same-sex marriage has been discussed and argued for a long time. Within the controversial topic of gay rights, there’s no area more controversial than same-sex marriage. And all of us ask ourselves if same-sex marriage should be legal or not. But the fact is that we have to start thinking about it as a moral and religious topic. The government shouldn’t legalize the same-sex marriage because the

One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and