The Pros And Cons Of Same Sex Marriage

H, 1999, para 9 &13). After separation, M “sought an order for partition and sale of the house and other relief” and spousal support under the Family Law Act” (para14). Both M and H settled their financial disputes (para18). However, M challenged the s.29 of the FLA and argued that definition of spouse in the act was only apply to heterosexual married couples and to unmarried couples who cohabited for maximum for three year (para 50) .The Supreme Court of Canada held that the s.15 (1) of the Charter is infringed by the Family Law Act. Further, the impugned legislation is not saved under s. 1 of the Charter (134). In addition, the FLA constructs distinction between the same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples that resulted in unequal benefits and protection to the claimants and also make same-sex couples vulnerable (para 62, 69). The Supreme Court of Canada declared remedy and gave Ontario six month to change the definition of the spouse (147).

On June 26th, 2013, a Supreme Court case occurred dealing with a same-sex couple, Mrs. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer. It was until they both got married in Ontario, Canada in 2007 and returned to the U.S to a home they had in New York City. Later in their years, Thea had passed away in 2009. Thea left the home estate to Windsor. The estate tax exemption was freely opened to Windsor to claim from the surviving spouses. Although, Windsor was not entitled to the estate tax discharge, because by federal law, was sought as the Defense of Marriage Act, bypasses the definition of a same-sex partner and ‘spouse’. Even after hearing that, Windsor paid her taxes for it, but eventually filed a suit to battle the constitutionality of the endowment. To the situation occurring, the United States District Courts as well as the Court of Appeals has reigned that the federal law to

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.

The case Obergefell vs. Hodges reached the United States Supreme Court in 2015 (Oyez). This case dealt with the rights of same-sex marriages and became important case in our nation’s young history and in our society in general. The problem was groups of same-sex couples were being told that their marriage licenses were not being upheld to the same legal standards as those of heterogeneous couples. Therefore same-sex couples in Ohio, Tennessee , Kentucky, and Michigan went and sued these agencies in challenge of their constitutional rights (Oyez).They took their issue to court because they believed that the states were denying them their 14th amendment rights without due process. They couldn’t understand why their marriages license were not

In U.S. v. Windsor a same-sex couple (Windsor and Spyer) who met in 1963 and had been dating ever since registered as domestic partners in 1993 in New York. Worried about Spyer’s failing health they went to Canada to get married in 2007. In 2009 Spyer died and left everything to Windsor. At the time DOMA denied federal recognition to same-sex spouses, Windsor did not qualify for the marital exemption from the federal estate tax, which excludes from taxation “any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse.” 26 U.S.C. § 2056(a).

In the case of US v Windsor, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto, Canada in 2007, where a same-sex marriage were legal and was recognized by New York state law. When in 2009, Thea died. Spyer left her estate to her spouse, and because their marriage was not recognized by federal law. The government imposed a tax of $363,000. If their marriage was recognized, the estate would have qualified for a marital exemption, and no taxes would have been imposed. On November 9, 2010 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, states that, for the purposes of federal law, the words “marriage” and “spouse” refer to legal

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was passed in 1996, positions the opinion that for the sake of federal law, the definition of “marriage” and “spouse” shall reference the lawful unions between one man and one woman. Edith Winsor was the widow and solitary executor of the estate of her late spouse Thea Clara Spyer who she had married in a ceremony in Toronto, Canada. The State of New York had recognized their marriage, but, owing to the failure of the federal government to recognize the marriage of the complainant a tax was levied against the estate in the amount of $363,000. The defense for the complainant held that had the marriage been recognized the estate would have qualified for the marital exemption where no taxes would have been imposed against the estate of the deceased.

1929) and her wife Thea Spayer (b. 1931) were legally married in Canada in 2007. Though their union was eventually legally recognized as a same-sex marriage by the State of New York, when Spayer died in 2009, Windsor was unable to receive an inheritance tax exemption reserved for spouses. The IRS denied her the tax exemption because Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) reserves the use of “spouse” for heterosexual unions (1 U.S.C. § 7) and the tax break was reserved for spouses. Windsor filed a case in a District Court in New York in 2010. The DOJ set the review as “heightened scrutiny” and did not seek to defend DOMA Section 3. However, in April 2011, Rep. Paul Clement was allowed to defend DOMA on behalf of the House BLAG (Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group). His defense relied on the premise that Windsor was not legally married to Spayer when she died. However, Judge Barbara Jones decided that the union between Windsor and Spayer, though not legally recognized at the time of Spayer’s death, should be considered a marriage for the purposes of the tax credit. She wrote that the IRS’s refusal to grant the credit violated Windsor’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and ordered the IRS to refund the inheritance tax she paid with interest. Rep. Clement took the case to the Supreme Court, where Justice Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion that the refusal to grant the tax credit was “a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth

Over the course of 2003 and 2004 two cases concerning same sex rights appeared before the Canadian and American supreme courts. The Supreme Court of the United States heard the case of Lawrence et al. v. Texas, which dealt with the constitutionality of sodomy laws prohibiting male on male sodomy. The Canadian Supreme Court also dealt with a case related to same-sex rights, but in a very different setting. The case before the Canadian Supreme Court was Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, a reference case dealing with the constitutionality of a proposed federal law legalizing same-sex marriage. Although both cases ended in what can be considered a “victory” for same-sex rights, they also reveal deep differences between the ways the two countries

The Defense of Marriage Act was a law passed by Congress stating that individual states were not required to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states. President Bill Clinton signed the bill in 1996 (ABC Clio). The act also defined marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman, which had never been clearly defined before. Most importantly, it prevented same-sex couples from recieving federal benefits such as health insurance, retirement savings, and social security (Sprigg). The overruling of this act in 2013 forced states to recognize same-sex marriage licenses given by other states (Supreme Court). It also acted as a step towards same-sex marriage legalization, which took place in a seperate ruling in 2015. Edith

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,

Marriage is a big thing in the U.S. In many religions marriage is to be between a man and woman. Recently the U.S. has experienced many gay marriages. Gay marriage was previously controlled by the states and whether or not that was legal. People involved in the gay community face a lot of hatred, harassed, and ridicule. There are pros and cons of being apart of a gay marriage. Pros are they have the same benefits that a heterosexual marriages, it is protected by the constitution, it is a civil right. As there are pros that means there have to be cons and some of those are children need both a father or mother the absence of one puts the child at higher risk for early sexual activity, legalizing gay marriage could lead down a "slippery slope," giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry, and gay couples will be looked upon as doing something wrong in the eye of religion.

When the 2016 presidential race began in back in February of 2015. Nobody would've guessed

Historic change in American matrimony is especially pronounced in three areas: the equalizing of the respective rights and duties of wives and husbands, the dissolution of marital prohibitions based on race, and the evolution from state-defined grounds for divorce to couple-defined no fault divorce. The most recent area of debate is whether the state should sanction marital consent between same-sex couples. Although such a prospect is unthinkable to some, earlier forms of legal marriage are equally unimaginable now.

Same sex marriage is when two people with the same gender get married. Most people label it as homosexual, gay or lesbian marriage. Allowing same gender couples to legally marry is considered to be one of the most important of all LGBT rights. Same sex marriage isn’t hurting anyone, personal I don’t have a problem with it. People should love and be able to marry anyone they please. America is supposed to be a free place. Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden are the 12 countries that allow same sex marriage. Alaska and Hawaii were the first states to