Lindsey and Beth, a lesbian couple, have been living together for eleven years. Lindsey conceived two children from a sperm donor. Together, Lindsey and Beth turned their house into a loving home for their two children. One day, on the way home from the grocery store, Lindsey was killed in a tragic car accident. Before Beth could even grasp the situation, the children that she helped raise from birth had been taken away and placed into the care of Lindsey's parents, who never were a part of their lives because they did not accept Lindsey's homosexuality. In addition, the house that Beth and Lindsey lived in for eleven years was taken away from Beth. How did this happen to Beth?
Well, if Lindsey and Beth could have been legally married like all heterosexual couples, Beth would have had custody of the children and would have kept the house. They would have received 1,049 protections, benefits and responsibilities that are extended to married couples under federal law (HRC). Lindsey and Beth are one example of same sex couples that live in 99.3 percent of all counties in the United States (HRC). It is estimated that 10 percent or 25 million people in the United States are homosexuals, and by law they do not have the rights that married heterosexuals enjoy. American voters have the power to change the law and prevent the sad story that Beth had to live, by voting "yes" on referendums in support of gay marriage, and "no" on bans of gay marriage.
The opening scenario of Lindsey and Beth is a dilemma that is becoming more of a real situation each day. The fact is that people are forming unions regardless of the law. In all fairness, the people involved in these relationships should have the same legal rights as all other American...
... middle of paper ...
...discriminating against gay marriage. But by voting "yes" on referendums in support of gay marriage, and "no" on bans of gay marriage, our society can become one step closer to creating a more fair and just society that supports diversity and accepts people with a different life-style.
Works Cited
Human Rights Campaign (HRC). 26 Nov 2006. .
Moats, David. Civil Wars a Battle for Gay Marriage. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2004.
Rauch, Jonathan. Gay Marriage. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2004.
Robertson, Donald L. Dr. "Homosexuality and Genetics." 26 Nov 2006.
.
"U.S. Census Figures Continue To Show National Trend." Human Rights Campaign. 27 June 2006. 26 Nov 2006.
eleases/20011/U_S_Census_Figures_Continue_To_Show_National_Trend.htm>.
For instance, in 2008 there were 147,848 marriages and a staggering 70,266 divorces (Statistics Canada, 2013). Thus, this illustrates that almost half of all marriages end in divorce. There are many reasons that a couple may choose to divorce including but not limited to economic issues, unrealistic expectations, and the weakening societal view of marriage. The implantation of the no-fault divorce grounds in 1968 have resulted in an easily attainable divorce (Riedman et al, 2003). In the film, many characters have been affected by divorce. First, we observe Duncan’s mother, Pam and Trent who have both been divorced in the past. Next, friends of Trent, a couple that also vacations during the summer are evidently heading for divorce as their marriage is filled with infidelity and
Florida state law does not recognize same sex marriage. In this case, the law had no way of proving whether or not Michael Kantaras is a man or a woman, since having a female to male sex change. Depending on this, it will decide whether or not he (pending on decision) will be able to keep custody of his adopted children. If society had not let technology surpass their conventional thinking and laws, this case would be easier to decide, or at least not pending on the sex of Mr./Mrs. Kantaras. If Florida law, and that of other places, had thought about all the consequences of technology, such a case as this never would have come to be so controversial. So, is Michael Kantaras really a man, or is she the woman she was born as?
2. The American demographic data show that there is a continuous increase in some racial and ethnic minority groups. As argued by Martica Bacallao and Paul R. Smokowski, it is evident that racial and ethnic composition of the country has changed since 1965 (Bacallao and Smokowski, 2). Demographic data indicates that the United States is experiencing the highest racial and ethnic minorities in history as a result of increased immigration and birth rate of such groups. Intermarriage between different racial and ethnic groups has led to a mixed racial heritage.
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
Among world regions, the number of unauthorized immigrants from Asia, Central America and sub-Saharan Africa rose between 2009 and 2014. The number of immigrants from Mexico has steadily declined since 2007, the first year of the Great Recession, but Mexicans remain more than half (52%) of U.S. unauthorized immigrants. ”(Jeffrey Passel). “Population growth is influenced by three factors: mortality (the death rate, which has been steadily decreasing in the U.S.), birth rates or fertility (children per woman) and net immigration (immigration minus emigration). “ (USPS).
Preston, Julia. "Number of Illegal Immigrants in U.S. May Be on Rise Again, Estimates Say." The New York Times 24 September 2013: A16.
They were able to obtain civil unions but were still denied a majority of the rights that come with marriage. The surveys and polls that Rosenberg analyzed, shows that public opinion was still a little hesitant about same sex marriage (Rosenberg 418). Conversely, the polls showed that people were more accepting of civil unions (Rosenberg 418). Rosenberg then goes on to state that had the activists gone to the court with civil unions and then waited for public opinion to be more in favor of same sex marriage to then proceed with equal rights, they may have had a better chance (Rosenberg 419). There is no way to know for sure if this would have been the case because we are not able to simulate a new world or go back in time. However, with the evidence that Rosenberg has shown it makes sense that since the activists did not have the support of the elites or the support of public opinion, they were not able to produce the change that they had hoped
While the gay rights movement has been around for some time, the things that they fight for is forever changing. Currently it is fighting for the right to marry, and receive all the rights straight people get when they marry. Married privilege is like white privilege; married people have more rights then non-married people, no matter what sex a person is married to. These benefits include insurance coverage’s under a spouse policy, social security benefit inheritance, receiving pension and personal assets without taxation, visitation rights at the hospital without question and making health care decisions (LaSala, 2007). In addition to all that, there is a social benefit to being married; it represents a healthy, developed and normal relationship (LaSala, 2007). Before reading this article, I never thought about why married people are given all of these rights. I never thought about where they came from, who made them up, or why they were even made. Why are we fighting for legalizing same-sex marriage a...
As an American citizen, a person should be entitled to marry whoever they choose, regardless of gender or sexual preference. Gay marriage is something that some people consider to be taboo while other people are very supportive of it; I am one of the latter. The ability to marry someone is a basic human right and it should not be taken away from someone because they love a person of the same gender. One of the main reasons that gay marriage is illegal in the United States is because of what the Bible says about it, regardless of the fact that the first Amendment of the US Constitution says that there is to be a separation between church and state. Approximately three point eight percent of the United States population is made up of people
Imagine you have just found the person of your dreams, your soulmate, the one you're meant to be with, but you can't marry them.
... if? The legal consequences of marriage and the legal needs of lesbian and gay male couples. Michigan Law review. Nov.1996. Pg. 447-491. http://www.jstor.org.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/stable/1290119?seq=1&uid=3739664&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103079482127
Vincent, Grayson W. and Victoria Velkoff. 2010. “United States Census.” Census.Gov. Retrieved May 2014 (https://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p25-1138.pdf).
In recent years, same-sex marriage has become a more controversial topic on whether it’s right or wrong. People should not feel coerced to agree with something they believe is wrong; clearly, same-sex marriage is immoral and unnatural. Many complications come with same-sex marriages including financial pressures, social pressures, moral pressures, and health risks.
In conclusion I argue that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it denies homosexuals the many benefits received by heterosexual couples. The right to marriage in the United States has little to do with the religious and spiritual meaning of marriage. It has a lot to do with social justice, extending a civil right to a minority group. This is why I argue for same-sex marriage. The freedom to marry regardless of gender preference should be allowed.
In the eyes of the Supreme Court, same-sex couples do not meet the prerequisites and qualifications needed to be legally married. The old-fashioned idea of marriage consists of a husband and a wife, where the man works and provides for the family while the woman stays home to tend the children. It’s no mystery that these outdated