The Universal Right to Family Essay

In The Gay Marriage Case, Obergefell v Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decided that a state may not prohibit same-sex marriage. Instead, it emphasized that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to the gay society through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States of America Constitution. The involved decision maker in the case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who gave four primary reasons for his decision.

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.

Is it okay to not believe in gay marriage, yet at the same time support the constitutional rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for homosexual couples? Even though most churches' beliefs conflict with marrying same-sex partners, government should not deny a person's right to their happiness; because any person, no matter race, color, sex, religion or sexual orientation, should be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights as Americans to pursue their happiness; and married gay couples should be able to have a spectrum of rights and benefits if their gay partnership is legalized.

However, in 2010, the Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, forcing the federal government to recognize legal marriages of same-sex couples. This enabled committed same-sex couples that are legally married in their own states to receive federal protections.

As a general rule, constitutional law examination differs depending on the nature of the right that is being asserted in a case. In the Constitution people have various rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Other rights in the Constitution are not presented in the Constitution, but they are arguably stated within its context. In this paper I will agree that the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges was right in affirming the equal rights of same-sex couples based on the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Court’s ruling in this case has an effect on the legal rights of children of same-sex couples, the rights of people who identify as gay, and the states’ sovereign right to enact legislation that defines

The BLAG argues that the Court should apply the lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis review, because the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community is not a protected class. Since all parties agree the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, the court argues there is no injury to Congress if DOMA is overturned, that BLAG violates the separation of powers, and that no Article III controversy exists. There are many social implications for the DOMA but BLAG agues it serves a federal interest by preserving traditional marriage to encourage responsible procreation. Proponents of DOMA believe marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers—parents with differentiated roles that are not interchangeable. BLAG claims responsible procreation is at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage because of the inextricable link between marriage and children. Those opposed to DOMA argue it is bad social policy and claim that all Americans—regardless of their sexual orientation—deserve the rights afforded to their peers because all are contributing members of society. They also argue that burdens placed on members of the LGBT community are based on harmful stereotypes with no basis in the individuals’ abilities. Concerns from the federal system are proponents of DOMA claim the law protects states’ sovereignty and neither creates a federalism problem nor hinders state autonomy. DOMA ensures states can independently decide to refuse same-sex marriages because DOMA allows each state to define marriage for itself under state law, and does not allow any state’s definition to eclipse another’s. Those opposed to DOMA claim Congress disregarded federalism

In detail, by the states restricting same-sex marriages, they have breached constitutional rights of gays which is the fourteenth amendment – the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. The Petitioner, James Obergefell and other same-sex couples, further argues that same-sex couples are nonetheless than heterosexual couples. While the Respondent, Richard Hodges and state official argues that “the Constitution does not address it, and therefore it is beyond the purview of the Court to decide whether states have to recognize or license such unions.” (Oyez, 2014).

All families face challenges in their everyday life. For some, the challenges are easier to handle while for others, surmounting those challenges can be more difficult. Over the years, the LGBT community in the US has faced many hurdles. Whether it’s the legalization of same-sex marriage to adoption rights to alimony, child support and child custody in case of divorce, legislation specific to gay and lesbian couples still has a long way to go.

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.

In my article named Windsor’s Knot in The Economist it talks about how the Supreme Court does not want to pass gay marriage. A case that this article brought in was Hollingsworth v Perry which discussed that a gay couple should have the right to marry. Supreme Court passed Proposition 8 which states that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Perry argues that not allowing gay couples to marry violates amendment fourteen, the Equal Protection Clause. Hollingsworth argues that same-sex couples will be a bad example of married couples that have kids, and that religion says that a marriage should be solely for a man and a woman. This case questions if Supreme Court has the right to say that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman and that if gay couples marry will it be a bad example to other marriages and the kids they have. Another case that this article brings in is United States v Windsor, in this case a couple that marries in Canada but lives in New York does not get

Since the early 1900s, homosexual people have become increasingly popular and greatly resisted. People that are homosexual face barriers placed upon them by the political system and society. Due to these challenges, homosexuals fought to have the same marital and parental rights as heterosexual people. Same-sex adoption is not prohibited in most states in the United States of America and many places worldwide. Family is not determined solely on blood relations and should be legalized in all parts of the world; because homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual parents, if not better, and can provide an enriching second chance for many children waiting to be adopted.

The laws in the United States regulating adoption policies are not clear, and when it comes to homosexual couples adopting children, the laws are even more complicated. A Washington Post poll conducted in March of 2013 found that 70 percent of adults under age 40 support gay marriage. Even though thirteen states in 2013 have legalized it, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that gay married couples cannot be denied federal benefits, gay couples trying to adopt children learn that both legal and cultural obstacles still occur. As legislatures and courts expand the legal definition of the American family, same-sex couples are beginning to feel more pressure. Many gay couples had accepted that they would never be accepted by society as loving parents and assumed they would never have children (Johnson 1).

The proposed legalization of same-sex marriage is one of the most significant issues in contemporary American family law. As a heavily campaigned development currently discussed in law assessment; these extremely confrontational and debatable political questions are facing present day American courts. If same-sex marriage is legalized, its affect on the parents, children, same sex couples, families, and the social and political world will be astronomical. The arguments surrounding the issue though confrontational nonetheless are easily seen from a wide array of perspectives. One of the perspectives states that marriage is a promise to a spouse to stay loyal and faithful in all

Doma or The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 in efforts to stop same-sex marriages in fear of the debate in Hawaii. Doma this labeled gays as immoral, perverse, depraved, and an attack on God’s principles. Congress passed Doma defining marriage as between a women and a man for the first time in history (Stone, 2012). Congress was clearly influenced by religious beliefs in passing Doma, which makes this unconstitutional. The United states government provides many benefits to married couples such as federal employees are entitled to medical coverage, the spouse of an individual covered by Social Security is eligible for retirement and survivor benefits, and married couples who file joint tax returns usually pay considerably lower federal income taxes than individuals who file separately (Stone, 2012 p.1). However, gay couples are refused these rights under law. Gay couples are denied many rights making them second class in the eyes of the government. If the partner of a gay couple was to be hospitalized the other can be denied rights to see them because they are not considered family. If the partner was to pass away the family can come in and make all the decisions even though it might be against the wishes of the deceased. The family can then take everything away from the surviving partner that dedicated their life and love to. The

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Should gay marriages be legal? Why should our nation accommodate such a dreadful Supreme Court ruling? Gay couples have become a major problem for our children. Children only repeat what they hear, see, and other habits from their role models. Our children are the ones who are being subjected to these horrifying situations.