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. In an article titled "Witch Hunt in the Golden State", David N. Bass sheds light on on his opinion that same-sex marriage activists are using nonsensical methods of defending their case. According to the article, the US 9th Circuit of Appeals received a request from two homosexual couples that would force the campaigners againt gay marriage to make their private communications during the campaign available to the public. This, an attorney for the two homosexual couples believes, would make it apparent that the campaign against same sex marriage used an unfair method of invoking fear that both traditional marriage and society as a whole would collapse if gay marriage were allowed. On the other hand, attorneys for the advocates of traditional marriage believe that being forced to give out their internal communications during the Proposition 8 campaign would be an infringement on the freedom of speech and the unwritten rules of politics. The author goes on to say that gay marriage activists are being hypocritical because they too have had their share of "unfair" political campaigning methods. He states that the Proposition 8 campaign was remarkably open, and that all of their methodologies for f... ... middle of paper ... ...y 42 years ago when I person was not allowed to marry another person because of they were a different race. The thought of restricting marriage on the basis of race is completely unimaginable today. And 42 years from, now, I hope the thought of restricting marriage on the basis of sexual orientation is also unfathomable. WORKS CITED Works Cited Bass, David. "Witch Hunt in the Golden State." Spectator.org. 7 December 2009. Spectator, Web. 9 Dec 2009. Mulvihall, Geoff. "Rabbis, heterosexuals join in NJ gay marriage debate." Townhall.com. 01 December 2009. Townhall, Web. 9 Dec 2009. Rauch, Jonathan. "Gay Marriage Is Good for America." Wall Street Journal (2008): n. pag. Web. 9 Dec 2009. Daum, Meghan. "John Marcotte: defending marriage by denying divorce." LATimes.com. 9 December 2009. LA Times, Web . 9 Dec 2009
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
Gay marriage is a hotly debated issue in today's society. Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett offer opposing views in the June 3, 1996 edition of Newsweek. Sullivan's article, “Let Gays Marry,” offers several arguments supporting the issues of same sex marriage. Bennett counters in his article, “Leave Marriage Alone,” that same sex marriages would be damaging to the sanctity of marriage. Each author presents several reasons for the positions they defend and bring up valid points to defend their opinions. William Bennett and Andrew Sullivan share a mutual respect for the values and sacredness of the bond of marriage. Their disagreements stem from who they believe should be allowed to marry.
In a country with it’s fundamentals based on liberty and equality, America has always struggled with those very concepts. Throughout history, Americans have been challenged to make decisions that have oppressed and freed certain groups of people. The political fight for same-sex marriages is a perfect example of this notion. This relation between spouses has created a major controversy that is creating history in our nation. A series of protests, acts and political scandal has finally opened America to discuss a topic that had been in “the closet” for a long time. This discussion asks questions that have caused a visceral reaction in society. Questions such as whether gays and lesbians should marry, and if so, should they be granted the same matrimony rights as heterosexual couples? Should marriage be protected to fit traditional American values? How would these unions affect or contribute to our definition of such a celebrated institution? .
Lipp, Murray. "7 Ways the U.S.A. Benefits From the Legalization of Gay Marriage." The Huffington
A debate is raging in America about who people have a right to marry. In response to lesbians and gays asking for the right to marry, many legislators are writing laws to ban same-sex marriage in their respective states. Even President Bush supports a Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage (prez.bush.marriage/). Opponents of such legislation do not want discrimination passed into law and are protesting at every opportunity. One must understand the reasons that people want to ban same-sex marriage before he or she can effectively argue about the subject. Many advocates of same-sex marriage bans say that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would degrade the institution of marriage because marriage is only supposed to exist between a man and woman. In addition, allowing same-sex marriage would cause problems for society (Issues and Controversies on File). One theory why opponents may fight against same-sex marriages is that heterosexual marriages have long reinforced traditional gender roles within marriage and that allowing same-sex marriages would cause males to lose their authority to subordinate females as heterosexual couples begin to model same-sex marriage gender equality (Calhoun 157).
Becker, Joe. "A Conservative’s Road to Same-Sex Marriage Advocacy." New York Times 18 Aug. 2009: 1-3. Print.
...nstead of setting marriage limitations based off of race, the government now says that same-sex marriage is illegal in over half of the states. Sixty years from now, the American people will look back on the 21st century and be appalled at how the people from today allowed their government to make it illegal for certain couples to get married, just as the people of today are disgusted with the ban on marriage between interracial couples before 1967.
As granted by the United States Constitution, everyone is entitled to equal rights. The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Gay rights are forgotten many times and equal rights for same-sex marriage are often ignored. For this reason, federal authorities have left policymaking regarding this topic up to individual state governments. Many people throughout the United States, and across the world, have extremely different views on the subject; some because of religious reasons, others because of family, others because of how they were raised. The policy of gay marriage and equal rights is an extremely touchy subject, and is much deeper than what it may seem.
Throughout the recent history of America, gay marriage has always been an issue. With the different views and morals everyone has on the subject, it makes it hard for individual states to determine what side they should be on. In 1983 a Harvard Law School student, Evan Wolfson, wrote a thesis stating the rule of marriage equality. Justices concluded that gay couples were entitled to the legal benefits of civil marriage; and most crucially in the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, whose favorable ruling, in a suit by lawyer Mary Bonauto and the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocated and Defenders, led to the nation’s first bona fide same-sex marriages…” (“Gay Marriage turns 10 and Credit Should Be Spread around- The Boston Globe). On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriages. In June of 2013, California legalized gay marriages, which helped their large LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) community. (“History and Timeline of the Freedom…”). When this finally happened, it was seen as a great achievement by Karmala Harris, a California Attorney. “This is a profound day in our country, and its just the right thing: ‘Justice is finally being served’” (“Court Gives OK for California Gay Marriages”).
It is apparent that Scott Bidstrup is trying to persuade his audience to agree with his ideas. He relates to the topic being a homosexual himself, and uses his own beliefs and concerns to argue why same-sex marriage should be legal, along with factual information. Using his own personal experiences and feelings on the issue, he debates why he believes people ...
One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and styles.
As of 2015, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community continues to struggle for equal rights held by their straight counterparts. Socially, LGBT persons are subject to discrimination, hate crimes, and stigma, while legally, LGBT persons encounter obstacles that preclude them from basic rights afforded to every other subculture in America. One of the most divisive issues related to LGBT rights has been same-sex marriage, which has been creating conflict both politically and socially dating back to the 1970’s (Finnis, 1997). Those in favor of same-sex marriage argue that regardless of gender or sexual preference, marriage is a basic right that the government has no legitimate interest in blocking. Opponents argue that same-sex marriage is ethically and morally wrong, and they cite reasons spanning from religious beliefs to the creation of a slippery slope that would lead to the demise of the institution of marriage (Volokh, n.d.). Faced with the difficult task of balancing both sides of the equation, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the policy that will be analyzed in this paper.
Stoddard, T, Fein, B, (Jan. 1990) Gay Marriage, Personal relationships, Marriage, Legislation, Homosexuality, American Bar Association, (Pages 42, 42)
The concept of same-sex civil unions have throughout the history of society, but have always come attached with a stigma and a hugely divided audience of interest. In 1970, the first same-sex couple applied for a marriage license in Hennepin, Minnesota and were denied. The couple decided to try a different county and were granted their license. This led to the Supreme Court case Baker v. Nelson, which ended up being eventually dismissed under the grounds of “a want of a substantial federal question”. However, several other cases involving same-sex marriage in the US have led to Supreme Court cases deciphering and interpreting our constitutional rights. From Baker v. Vermont to Perry v. Brown, the Supreme Court has interpreted a handful of legal disputes questioning ...
Increasingly, however, the arguments against same-sex marriage have turned to the legal realm, asserting that the practice threatens the right to religious freedom. Objectors use the U.S. Constitution and governing laws to craft legal arguments, rather than morality arguments, warning of a strong erosion of religious liberties should marriage laws be changed to accommodate same-sex unions (Berg, Schowengerdt).