The Rights Of The People

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.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court removed the ban on same-sex marriage nationwide. On July 15, 2015, Kenneth Jost published an article named “Will there be more gains after marriage ruling?” In this article, Jost discusses the viewpoints of the general public and argues that there may still be a struggle to gain full rights and respect for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The article covers the reaction of the public on June 26, along with politicians stand-points on the subject, and the Caitlyn Jenner controversy. Jost’s main argument is that LGBT people are not being protected by the government, even though they have gained the right to marry.

She upholds that her religion as an Apostolic Christian prevents her from supporting same-sex nuptials. “This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes,” she said. “This is a fight worth fighting.” (Starnes, 2015) Public-order advocates maintain the idea that an elected official has a duty to uphold to the law. Individual-rights advocates continue to support Davis, such as Liberty Counsel Attorney, Mat Staver, who said “if this country has come to this point where a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for their religious convictions – then we have lost our religious liberty.” (Starnes, 2015) The lack of tolerance for gay marriage has also been seen in Oregon where a bakery was sued for “emotional suffering” (The Guardian, 2015) because the bakery owner refused to make a cake for a gay couple. “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal,” Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian said in the final order.” (The Guardian, 2015) Anna Harmon, one of the attorneys for the couple “said Avakian’s order is unconstitutional, because “the right to speak freely, to think uniquely, and to live according to our faith is the bedrock of this country.” (The Guardian,

In this article, “Kentucky Clerk Ordered to Jail for Refusing to Issue Gay Marriage License” the author James Higdon focuses on the recent topic of gay marriage. Higdon’s story relates to a Kentucky woman named Kim Davis. Davis was arrested September 3, 2015 because she refused to issue marriage license to a gay couple. “Under questioning from her attorney, Davis went on to express her opposition to same-sex marriage, which she said was ‘not of God’ and contrary to natural law and therefore not something that she could condone” (Higdon). This quote shows that Davis refused to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs. Davis’s religious beliefs are so strong that she continued to fight with the law and the court judge

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

Hundreds of protestors are gathering outside of the courthouse either protesting or supporting a Christian woman’s beliefs and actions. Many hold up signs or scream louder than others to declare their personal point of view. Kim Davis is a county clerk in Ashland, Kentucky; has denied numerous marriage licenses for multiple same-sex and straight couples (Smith). This has become a very controversial issue for many and everyone has a different opinion as well. Kim Davis' trial is an influential trial by challenging many of the essential American principles such as morality or ethicality, upholding constitutional rights, and separation of church and state.

In “Texas clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.” (2015), Lauren Gambino states that Texas clerks can refuse to issue marriage license to same sex couples, they can justify their refusal on the grounds of religious liberty. Gambino supports her claim by providing factual evidence--including quotes from Texas clerks, which makes her more ethical, because she provides a neutral informative article on this matter. Gambino hopes to inform US citizens of what is going on in Texas, following the same sex marriage legalization by the Supreme Court, while enticing anger

The United States Supreme court a while ago made same sex marriages legal in all the 50 states of the nation. However, a clerk from the Kentucky state marriage office Kim Davis has come under the spot light. She had refused to grant a marriage licence to a gay couple, and was as a result incarcerated. A federal court order brings consequences with it if one breaches the same. Miss Davis managed to overlook this aspect or preferred jail over a marriage licence to a gay duo.

Supporters of Davis say that she has the right not to distribute the licenses because of her religious freedom and that she does not deserve to be in jail (source B). Some say that because the Supreme Court cannot make laws, she is not breaking the law and that the Supreme Court imposing on Mrs. Davis and her beliefs. Kim Davis did not know that she would have to issue gay marriage licenses when she was elected for her

When I began to read on this and really found out about this issue of Kim Davis I knew right then how things would go for her. Kim Davis is like every human being on this earth she has choices and some choices causes us to be in a uncomfortable position and some causes us to deal with things that starts conflict especially if the goverment is involved. Now as fellow Americans we know that in later history religon has always got most in trouble behind it simple because that was what people were known to stand by and believe in becuase it was only right. Now recently all around the world homesexuality has come up and now they are now not those people but regualr people of America that have a right to do possibly any hetrosexual person can do for example, marry, adopt, and vote and all sorts of things just to name a few.

Davis was sued by four gay couples in federal court for her denial to issue marriage licenses, but she remained firm and declined to issue licenses despite repeated directions from state and court. Finally, she was arrested and spent about a week in

When Kim Davis was sent to jail on a Thursday, judge David Bunning had found her in contempt for refusing to issue the same-sex marriage license to gay and lesbian couples. According to Kim Davis, promoting these same-sex license to gay and lesbian couples would violate her beliefs of God’s definition of marriage which states that one man and one women belong together, married

Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis was sent to jail for 6 days because she refused to issue same sex marriage licenses. Davis claimed that issuing the licenses was against her religious beliefs and principles. She asked the Kentucky state legislature write an accommodation letting her keep her job without violating her faith. Doing so Davis would have to remove her name and title from marriage certificates making them invalid.

In a hypothetical scenario in which same-sex marriage and religious freedom are brought to a legal confrontation, the constitutional rights of both plaintiffs and defendants bring forth a nationwide debate on civil liberties and rights—yet it is easy to mistake one for the other. In this scenario, after lesbian couples Donna and Theodora married in the state of Massachusetts instead of North Carolina (Theodora’s home state), both decided to move to North Carolina in the city of Clinton where they found jobs to financially support one another. However, when both couples contacted a local bakery shop for a wedding cake, they were denied by the shop’s owner who cited North Carolina’s recently enacted law that allows businesses to refuse the patronage of homosexuals when the business owners themselves have a religious objection to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. When Donna and Theodora tried to hire a photographer for when they planned to recite their wedding vows, the photographer refused—with the issue of religious freedom again been cited in her arguments. Although this initially didn’t come as a surprise to Donna and Theodora, Donna was more concerned about the maid of honor, Bernice, a transgender person being able to use the women’s restroom. Because Bernice was born male, under the rules of House Bill 2—more formally addressed as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (aka “the bathroom bill”)—that would exclude Bernice from using the bathroom of her choice