Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Religious freedom religion aspect
Religious freedom religion aspect
Religious freedom religion aspect
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Religious freedom religion aspect
Christians should and shouldn’t be exempt from the same-sex marriage law, due to the fact that it violates someone’s constitutional rights. Even though many Christians believe that they should be exempt from providing services to gay/lesbian marriages, is there a compromise that they could work out so they both win. In the Washington Law Review by Peter Dolan, he said that “[t]he debate over same-sex marriage has become for the twenty-first century what the abortion debate was for the twentieth century…” with making this kind of statement proves how big of an issue this has become. First reason Christians should be exempt from the same-sex marriage law is because it requires them to go against their beliefs. Within the article that was written …show more content…
He says, “people who hold genuine and heartfelt beliefs at either end of a politically-charged spectrum…”. With making this statement Dolan is trying to prove that if people who hold a religious view are genuine and heartfelt should be exempt from the same-sex marriage law. Even though he stands for Christians of being exempt to the marriage law, he proposes a really good idea of “refuse and refer”. Dolan makes a very interesting statement that says, “requiring a merchant to perform services that violate his deeply held moral commitments is far more serious, different in kind and not just in degree from mere inconvenience” (Dolan 1144-5). He is trying to say just because someone gets mad because a certain person couldn’t provide the service doesn’t mean that they can’t go somewhere else because it is inconvenient for them. Farther into the review Dolan makes a statement that simply said that they need make it know that they do not serve same-sex marriages but in a non-discriminating way. But, they should be willing to offer a referral to someone that will provide them with a service. This seems to be a more effective way of dealing with same-sex religious belief bases than making a fuss out of something that is
Using multiple examples from his background provides us with a sense of understanding of the complications of both religious and government involvement in the decision to allow same-sex marriage. He demonstrates a solid awareness of who his target audience is and conveys his thoughts in a manner that is easily comprehended. The structure of his article flows nicely and the examples used prove to invite further thoughts on the subject. The highlight of Moody’s piece for me was this, “When our beloved Constitution was written, blacks, Native Americans and… women were quasi-human beings with no rights or privileges, but today they are recognized… with full citizenship rights. The definition of marriage has been changing over the centuries… it will change yet again as homosexuals are seen as ordinary human beings.”
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 except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
He continues to support the main claim by showing his knowledge of married couples’ legal rights. He explains that homosexual couples that are not allowed to marry are denied tax breaks, group insurance, and pension programs (Stoddard, 1988, p. 551). These are important grounds,...
... to agree on the fact that the issue at hand is one of religion. Religion seems to be the deciding factor right now when it comes to the question of what is right and what is wrong. Both authors see religion as the main concern when the question of homosexual marriage is brought up. So as each has very different ideals for society as a whole, both Bennett and Sullivan try to represent the happiness of the people as a whole, in their own ways. The two authors present very different points of view and each has well thought out reasoning behind what he has to say. Although the authors feel very different about how marriage should exist and how it should be regulated, there is some common ground between the authors.
Where would the world be without the inventions and ideas of the 1920's? The answer is, no one really knows; however, the inventions and ideas that were brought about in the 1920's are things that are used more than ever today. With the technological advancements made in the 1920's, the invention of the radio, television, automobile, and other minor advancements made the 1920's one of the most important decades of the 1900's.
Robinson B.A “The Episcopal Church and Homosexuality” Religious Tolerance. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 28 Oct. 2003. Web. 29 Oct 2013 www.religioustolerance.org
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.
...get equal legal & financial rights for same-sex couples as opposite-sex couples. It states that while it will not allow same-sex marriage, it provides homosexual de facto couples the same rights that heterosexual de facto couples have.
Beginning with the topic on gay marriage and the controversial battle between authors, Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett, Sullivan is the gay supporter. In Sullivan’s piece, “Let Gays Marry,” he opens with a statement by the Supreme Court, “A state cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” He feels that this simple sentence has so much meaning, saying that whatever type of person, male or female, black or white, everyone deserves the same legal protection and equal rights. Therefore, gay marriage should not be excluded from the legal system. He tells that some churches practice different beliefs and may oppose gay marriage but religion has nothing to do with the state appeals. Sullivan explains how the definition of marriage has changed in the past and that it can be done again. Sullivan ends his piece by saying that changing the law would not affect straight couples, so why are they against gay marriage? He believes the change would allow gay couples to experience what straight couples already have.
This would be similar to stating that heterosexuals can "pick" who they are pulled in to. By what means can a person of the hetero group say with master counsel, that homosexuality can be changed, or whether they can be glad? No one would decide to carry on with an existence where they will be segregated upon or confronted with partiality. This ties into all having the flexibility to have the capacity to pick and wed whomever one needs. Not being incorporated in this central right, victimizes same-sex couples from the imperative lawful procurements. Not just does it burglarize them, it makes them feel debased, and it empowers the non-gay group to victimize the LGBT group. "Nobody ought to be denied the chance to pick his or her companion. It is an essential human right and profoundly individual choice. All through history, we have just pushed ahead when society has recognized customary qualities and valueless customs. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a valueless convention that undermines the soul of adoration and responsibility that couples impart and sends the wrong message to society. The time it now, time for its nullification" (NCLR). This is the equivalent law that overlooks the LGBT group to wed. Albeit not everybody in the LGBT group needs to wed, everyone maintains whatever authority is needed to pick. LGBT individuals should be dealt with similarly and have the same admiration of the equivalent security of
... 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
"Homosexual [persons], like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship, and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community.(To Live)
In this essay, I will explain how religion is sometimes used to mobilize against LGBT people, how some people’s religious and personal doctrines conflict regarding LGBT issues, and how religious belief and community can be a positive force for the LGBT community.
Initially, I will give a brief definition of “religious belief” and “religious discrimination” and write afterwards about prohibitions regarding religious discrimination, reasonably accommodation of religious beliefs and practices, undue hardship, and about the question “Who is subject to the provisions under Title VII?”.
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.