What if it was not possible to get the benefits that were promised through marriage? What if a marriage license was made unable to obtain? What if love was defined, and not respected? The Defense of Marriage act, created by the house of congress, on January 3rd, 1996 (Defense of Marriage Bill). Passed 342-67, Republican over democratic vote ratio. (Govtrack.us) Created by the 104th congress, 396th house vote (Govtrack.us), and ruled unconstitutional by the Judicial This act did not make it illegal to have a spouse of the opposite sex, for it left that up to the states, although it made it so a gay, or lesbian couples could not get the same benefits as a straight couple could. Benefits such as, Estate Planning Benefits, Death Benefits, Consumer …show more content…
Without the Judicial branch, the other two can almost run freely and do whatever with very little checks or balances. In section three of the Defense of Marriage Act, it states “‘‘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.’’.” (Defense of Marriage Bill) This is showing that the government and many people in the U.S. believe only in one way to be maritally connected and that they will not allow for any other way. But the Judicial branch did not like this very much. They have the power to rule any law unconstitutional, and they used their power to do so on section three of this act.
The Judicial branch didn’t have to decide this way. They could have decided whatever way they wanted and done nothing about it. The law could have been overlooked, and benefits that are now given to same sex couples, could be continued to be restricted. The Executive and Legislative branch could have had all the power in this law making, and at that point they would have to much power and checks and or balances would not have
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases, it is expected that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was revealed, the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.
The opinion of the court was held by Justice Kennedy, in that the Colorado amendment was held unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment on the United States Constitution. Kennedy argued the amendment singles out a specific group in which, it would make it so only homosexuals cannot receive the protective rights that are available to anyone else. This idea makes homosexuals unequal to everyone else because they are not guaranteed the same protection that anyone else could get if they needed it. Furthermore, the amendment burdens the homosexual community by not allowing them to seek protection against discrimination though the use of legislation. Additionally, Kennedy claims “In and ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest…” (632) By this he means that a law will be considered valid as long as it has a ...
The three branches of the federal government is the Legislative, Judicial, and the Executive branch. According to the federalist papers, the Legislative branch is the strongest branch since they enact laws, therefore, by cutting the legislative branch in half by creating a Senate and a House of representatives, it makes the separation of powers more of a level playing field. Furthermore, the Judicial branch is considered the weakest out of the three since it has "...no influence over either the sword or the purse... can take no active resolution whatever... neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must... depend upon the aid of the executive arm... for... judgments” (Hamilton, Federalist 78) This means that it has no monetary or military power and that it relies directly on the legislative and executive branches to follow their rulings which makes sure that the government does not have too much power individually. Therefore, since it is the weakest branch, the court has the power of judicial review, which is the ability to decide whether acts by the other branches are constitutional or not (Hamilton, Federalist 78). Furthermore, one should not be concerned about the use of excess of power since according to Hamilton these are good people who aren’t influenced by outside sources other than the constitution. The separation of these three branches creates a system of checks and balances in which each individual form of government is independent of one another and is able to ensure that each other do not step out of line (Hamilton, Federalist
The Judicial Branch was written to have very little power, it originally had a federal court and then had to be divided into lower. The President is in charge of appointing the justices, and all of the decision from congress and the executive branch have to go through the judicial branch in order for them to decide if it constitutional or unconstitutional.
Texas can be attributed to the angle from which the defendant and justices approached the case. Instead of focusing solely on due process, from which the petitioners’ right to “engage in their conduct without intervention of the government” is derived, attention was also given to equal protection under the law. By criminalizing “sodomy” and thus homosexuality, Texas made it “more difficult for homosexuals to be treated in the same manner as everyone else,” thus legally sanctioning “discriminations against [homosexuals] in a variety of ways unrelated to the criminal law.” [footnote O’Connor, concur] The fear was that the law would set a precedence for discrimination in various fields of everyday life, ranging from family to employment and housing. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor points out in her concurrence, although the criminalization of sodomy (most broadly defined in American law as non-procreative sex) itself may not be unconstitutional, the way the law is implemented was, as only homosexual sodomy was banned (as opposed to heterosexual sodomy). Therefore, under the Equal Protection Clause, the law represents a “bare desire to harm the group.” [footnote ibid] Although Texas invoked the moral argument, as government had done in the past when regulating marriage and family and other forms of intimate relationships, O’Connor found such arguments to be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, (judicial) government
On June 26, 2015, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right in the decision on Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. This controversial decision overturned the law of more than 17 states. In the 5-4 decision, Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan voted with the majority and Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito were dissenting. At the heart of the controversy is the philosophy of judicial restraint and judicial activism. Was the Obergefell decision an example of judicial activism? Certainly, because it declared state laws banning same-sex marriages as unconstitutional. The Court’s decision, which was based on precedent and interpretation of the Constitution, was just.
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.
Citizens all over the globe argue if abortion should be considered legal, even though all states in America already allow it, hence the Roe V. Wade case. Others think it should be withheld and be considered illegal. Although the case was held a long time ago, people still bring it up today. Arguably, I believe that abortion should be illegal in most, if not all, states of the world.
One of the major problems that same-sex couples fighting for recognition of their relationship faced, was that the modern definition of marriage was derived from the case Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee [1866], which states marriage must be:
The supreme court case of Obergefell v. Hodges is one huge reason why we have same-sex marriage as of today. Richard Hodges is the defendant while James Obergefell is the plaintiff. As a result of this case, states are unable to pass laws that limit marriage of same-sex couples. It requires all states to license marriages between these couples, and makes states recognise marriages made outside of said states. Before this case, there were several other cases that supported similar, but not exact situations, which will be briefly covered in this essay. However, the Obergefell v. Hodges case is what officially made same-sex marriage undeniable by all states in the union.
The ruling of Baehr vs. Lewin was a victory for gay rights activists, hope for other states searching for the same freedom, and disappointment for opponents of same-sex marriage. Yet this victory was short lived (until complete legalization in November 13, 2013) since the state appealed the lower court’s decis...
The United States government should pass an Equal Rights Amendment to guarantee equality for both men and women.
Why isn’t gay marriage legal yet? How does gay marriage affect people that aren’t gay? Why does it matter to those people? Why can’t gay people have the same rights as straight people? Gay marriage should be legal worldwide. Gay marriage or same-sex marriage is when a man and man or women and a woman get married. Same-sex marriage impacts society in different types of ways, some people are affected by it because they think it is against the bible, others seem to have no impact or problem with same-sex marriage. However for the gay community it affects them, because in some states they are not allowed to marry the one they are in love with it. Also it impacts them because there are groups of people against same-sex marriage and the gay community is constantly being judged by people opposed to same-sex marriage. Seventeen states have legalized same-sex marriage; Thirty-three states banned same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage provides a more stable environment for children of gay couples. Legalizing same-sex marriage does not affect or harm heterosexual marriages. Marriage is a union of love, not a union of genders.
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.
The recognition of same-sex marriage is a political, social, and religious issue. Because of this same-sex marriage is a very controversial topic. Legal acknowledgement of same sex marriage is commonly referred to as marriage equality. Many advocates of marriage equality argue that laws restricting marriage to only heterosexuals discriminate against homosexuals. On the other hand advocates against same-sex marriage argue that it would undo long-standing traditions and change the meaning of marriage in a damaging manor. In this essay I will be arguing for same-sex marriage. The arguments mentioned as well as others will be discusses throughout this paper.