Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that "civil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage" and that religious leaders are accustomed to performing marriages only because the state has given them that authority (Walker, 2010). Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. Equality is for everyone, and the civil right of marriage should not be withheld from same-sex couples because of the closed minded views of those who are afraid of change. The very idea of marriage has been an ever changing concept since its inception far before religious use of the institution.
This is coupled with a total neglect of the other end of the spectrum, the evaluation of the positives of heterosexual relationships in marriage. Meeks and Stein would have us believe that all things being equal, the dynamic of same-sex marriage has no negative influence on the family values and society. They even go so far as to assert that gays and lesbians are more likely to strengthen the traditional family values. Missing in this article are discussions and analysis of traditional family values of the heterosexual
Based on the constitutional arguments for both cases, I agree with the rulings of each court. I believe marriage is a fundamental civil right afforded to all free persons based on the Constitution, and that right should not be taken away simply because the government doesn’t agree with who you choose to marry. I strongly agree with Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, who in Goodridge wrote, “[t]he exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In turn it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations."
Is everyone treated equally? In my opinion it’s a no. In this essay I will be talking about the same sex-marriage. Kathy Belge author of the Pro Gay Marriage - Why gay marriage should be legal. She takes on the most undefended issue persisting in today’s society, the same-sex marriages.
Jessica Rasdall Gay Marriage SHOULD be a legal The Declaration of Independence states that are man are created equal and are given certain unalienable rights. These rights include Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. If this is so, why can’t people marry whoever they want to marry? Even though I’m not gay, I feel it is wrong to not allow gays to marry and if I was in congress I would pass a bill that made gay marriage legal in all states. If a person is deeply in love with a person of the same sex they shouldn’t have to worry about if the government will let them get married or not and I have many reason as to how the government is violating peoples right’s.
“Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal” Stoddard’s “Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal” discusses the lack of freedom, fairness, and equality for same sex couples. The topic of gay marriage has been up in the air for years. Society has shied away from the subject maybe hoping it would just disappear but that won’t be happening any time soon. The government has tried different tactics to keep homosexual couples from marrying. If we were to go back and think about the founding of America you would see many instances of one person or group thinking they knew the exact way to live and morals to follow.
Olson dreams of social acceptance and equality for our nation. Shulman dreams of a nation with old fashioned moral traditions. I can respect both. I do however think Shulmans argument was a bit ridiculous. I have read much better article opposing gay marriage that had much more constitutional relevance.
“Separate But Equal” Audience: Teenagers and adults of non-Caucasian backgrounds looking into the history of justice in the Civil Rights movement involving the right to have public schools with no racial segregation. Genre: Essay At the end of the Reconstruction Era, the time period following the Civil War, the Morrill Act of 1890 accepted the concept of “separate but equal”, meaning that blacks and non-Caucasians may be segregated if granted equal opportunities and facilities as for education, transportation, and jobs. Imagine living in this America today. Over half of us would be racially segregated due to the diversity even in the state of Hawaii. This idea of “separate but equal” was unjust, unconstitutional, and un-humanlike.
De’Ja Davis 16 September 2013 W131 R8 Ms. Masur A Critique of William J. Bennett’s “Against Gay Marriage” In the article, “Against Gay Marriage,” William J. Bennett declares that the standard for marriage will be destroyed if gays are able to married. To start off, he elaborates on the Hawaii’s Supreme Court’s discovery of a new state constitutional “right”. This “right” is known as the legal union of same sex couples. Hawaii will be the first state to sanction these unions. In doing so, other states may have to follow along due to the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Claus.
I see today a lot of controversy between the two, with Romney's anti gay ads, stating that Obama has forced this upon us. Or on the flip side, where Obama says with pride, that he believes that same sex couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples have. With that being said, I believe that this goes back to where people don't want to break from the traditional values that we all know, the traditional thought of a man and a woman being the only ones who can create a successful bond between the two of them. For modern day society this creates quite a bit of questions and concerns. Like the most common one, who's the man, and who's the woman in the relationship?