What Makes One Kind Of Love Better Than Another?

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.

The massive amount of people who believe and support LGBT should have the same human rights and equality say, “it's only fair they receive the same liberty to love who they love.” (Texas, Democratic Party, 1) Throughout the years, same sex marriage supporters have been increasing; “81% of adults under 30 now support marriage equality.”(Texas Democratic Party, 1). People have been making an effort to fight this case even since the beginning of the gay rights movement in the 1960s-1970s. Even before that though, homosexuals have tried to be seen equal, and of course, have an aspiration to be able to obtain the same rights as everyone else, which is to win over the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed in 1996 by Presidential Clinton to be able to marry the person they love regardless of what their gender

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

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.

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.

The LGBT community in the United States has always had massive difficulty fitting into our society. For many years they put up with constant mistreatment and other forms of abuse coming from the those who do not agree with their lifestyle. They have for long advocated for the acceptance of their existence and punishment for crimes committed against them. One of the hardest battles the community has had to face was the right to marry in a society that still holds the values of a traditional relationship which is between a male and female. The struggle was quite harsh but it all paid off by 2015 when the supreme court granted gay couples the right to marry. This historical decision did not go without outcry and criticisms. Most of the dissatisfaction came from those who hold very religious values and beliefs that claims homosexuality is a sin. Religion has always been a part of the American way of life since the nation's founding and with that homosexuality has been demonized throughout our society. Now that gay couple possess the legal rights to have a marriage license, religious companies and/or stores are now denying service to LGBT couples as they believe it sinful on their behalf to even take part. Many people gay or straight who fought for gay rights believe these is pure discrimination and that stores should not have the right to deny service for any customer for any reason. However, this belief is unconstitutional and goes

At the time the article was first published, the push for legalizing gay unions was a controversial topic in the USA. The writer, ‘Rev. Louis P. Sheldon was at the time, the chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, a California-based organization of some 32,000 churches’ (p. 1). He was obviously against the idea of accepting gay marriage and sustained that gay relationships are simply ‘unnatural’. Moreover, he stated that nearly 80% of Americans were opposing the legalization of marriage among gay people. Along with the author many people opposed to the idea at that time of his article – But in despite of that, gay marriage was finally legalized in the United States in June 26, 2015 (Wikipedia 2001).

When the government interferes with a fundamental right, the regulation or statute at issue must meet the strictest standard of scrutiny. In order to pass constitutional muster, the regulation or statute must be implemented for a “compelling government interest,” and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The regulations in each of the respective states prevent same-sex couples from marrying, or prevent recognition of legal, out-of-state marriages in their home

Hodges concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington Post)”. However, the majority opinion went further to find that “the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause have stretched to certain personal choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy, including their intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (Washington Post)”. Using this idea, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples. The ruling has helped gay rights advocates fight more than a hundred and fifteen pieces of legislation that were introduced in state legislatures that were targeting gay people. The majority opinion agreed that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change. “In addition to clearing the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, Friday’s decision may help end discrimination against gays and lesbians in other matters, such as adoption and custody rights, legal experts say (LATimes)”. Gay couples can now have no problem matters when wanting to start a family because of the great decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly twelve years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.“In all his decisions Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes (NYTimes)”. Kennedy makes a great point that the generations before wrote and ratified the Bill

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in the majority opinion: "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them." Many conservatives are completely against gay marriage and they have stated that they will fight to have the Supreme Court ruling overturned.

The biggest component fueling the backlash is religion and the rights bestowed onto it via the constitution and peoples own religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. Both at a state and private level, opponents to the decision reached would knowingly deny service to same sex couples due to religious beliefs. Wolf (2016) stated that “Some states, led by Mississippi and North Carolina, have enacted laws intended to protect those who deny services to gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender people because of religious objections. Tennessee and Kansas have passed less sweeping religious exemption laws.” Some states who oppose the ruling believe that they have a fundamental right to enact laws protecting those who deny service to people who share beliefs that go against the religion’s beliefs of the service provider. They believe that the freedom of religion deems their actions in the right, but they are sadly mistaken. Although I highly support all rights within the constitution I can clearly see that the freedom of religion doesn’t grant people the right to segregate others who simply hold different beliefs than others who follow religious beliefs that sate otherwise. The freedom of religion protects one’s ability to practice their religion for themselves, not to force it on others whom share differing opinions than that of their religion. Universities and colleges have also been a topic post ruling, before the ruling, universities were implementing rules to house couples but not homosexual couples in their housing programs. When discussing how this ruling will affect not only religious sanctions whom marry people, but also religious affiliated universities, Masci (2015) asks “And what about a religiously affiliated institution, like a university, that offers married heterosexual students housing but refuses such accommodation for married gay and lesbian students?” the ruling by the Supreme Court, in my

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a major case that will affect millions of Americans in one way or another. This ruling has been decades in the making and was certainly going to be controversial no matter how it turned out. The key issue is whether or not gays and lesbians had the same constitutional right that heterosexual people do in regards to marriage. Not too long ago the concept of this even being considered by the high court would’ve been unfathomable. The 5 to 4 court ruling favoring the plaintiffs has shocked many generations of religious and conservative people.

Most LGBT youth become happy with who they are which gives them room to thrive during their adolescent years. Attending a school that has a safe and comfortable environment for every student is especially important. Positive environments can help all youth achieve good grades and maintain good mental and physical health. However, some youths are more likely than their straight peers to experience bad health and life outcomes. Experiences with violence, compared to other students, come easy to LGBT individuals that can cause increased risks for unfortunate circumstances.‘Violence’ includes behaviors such as teasing, harassment, and physical assault. It is important that students at risk have access to resources and support to deal with any questions or challenges they may have or face as they mature. Surveyed LGBT students reported 10% were threatened or injured, 34% were bullied, and 28% were bullied electronically.

Justice Kennedy stated that “many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their