Another similarity was that they both had to deal with marriages. Both were issues that people now in days still don’t agree on which same sex marriages and interracial marriages. The difference in these two court cases was that in the Goodrigde v. Department of Public Health was that the Fourteenth Amendment was not on their side. That is where the ruling came out that the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. It was said that the marriage didn’t guarantee “the fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.” Also it was said that the marriage exclusion does not offend the liberty, freedom, equality, or due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution.
Lauren Adams Melissa Helton English 102 2 February 2012 Summary of A. Sullivan’s “For Gay Marriage” & W. Bennett’s “Against Gay Marriage”. Andrew Sullivan and William J. Bennett have very different opinions about legalizing gay marriage. Sullivan suggests it should be legal, but Bennett argues that it would ruin everything marriage stands for in America. In his book Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality (1995), former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan argues that not having gay marriage is a violation of equality. He points out that he is not referring to religious traditions but suggests, in a public institution, marriage should be available to any two citizens.
The Act was ruled unconstitutional because it requires federal estate tax to be paid by folks in same-sex marriages. Currently if the spouse in an opposite-sex marriage dies, no federal estate tax needs to be paid. The court also stated that the Act discriminates based on sexual orientation and violates equal protection under the Constitution. Republicans are contesting a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates based on the denial of health benefits to same-sex spouses. In defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans claim the goals are to “maintain consistency in allocating federal benefits and encourage relationships “that most frequently result in the begetting and raising of children.”” NYTIMES.
There are several reasons why the U.S. Government should not accept same-sex marriage as legitimate or provide same-sex couples with federal benefits. Firstly, recognizing same-sex marriages would weaken the institution of marriage because it is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is a self-contradiction. The institution of marriage is already in a troubled state. There is near a 50% divorce rate among heterosexual marriages.
It is for this reason that states do not have to recognize out of state gay marriages unlike other legal measures protected by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A history of muddied political interpretation has led to measures which overreach principles of federal law, and other similar discriminatory measures like USC section 7’s “definition of marriage and spouse.” The Full Faith and Credit Clause should be upheld in support of gay marriage because constitutionally, not doing so would misconstrue numerous constitutional norms. The Full Faith and Credit Clause normally protect things such as freedom of mobility, the commerce clause, the right to marry, and the right to travel. By not applying the Full Faith and Credit Clause, these liberties are combined and disregarded for a minority group. If a gay marriage (a legal status not a national law) is not guarded by Full Faith and Credit, implications on national economy, family law, and children’s rights are at risk.
When he was asked whether he would favor the prohibition of the bilingual ballot, he simply stated, “Of course not.” Wills’ continues in the next section stating that our national identity and our federal laws are being weakened by immigration that is influenced by these bilingual ballots. He also uses this anecdote in the fourth section by showing how our laws are weakening. That these illegal immigrants are able to ask for bilingual ballots because the law is weakening and they are able to immigrate into the country in illegal ways without knowing how to speak English or know anything about our politics. Although the chief rhetorical aim of the article appears to be to inform Americans rather than persuade them as to why the bilingual ballot should be prohibited, why is Will not taking up a more serious tone if he felt so strongly about the
Thomas mentions that gay and lesbian marriages should be the choice of the individuals not the government. He promotes gay and lesbian marriages by saying those who vote against gay and lesbian marriage are people of injustice. He states that we cannot solely base our decision on history alone, if so most states would still prohibit the marriage of different races. Thomas states that marriage should promote family and stability and people should not be denied this right. By depriving millions of gay American adults the rights that come from marriage, denies equal protection against the law.
Part Two – Argument “Not allowing gays to marry is discrimination because they do not receive the same legal benefits that married people do. Some of these benefits include: the right of survivorship for homes; pensions, Social Security and retirement
Therefore there is not justifiable reason to extend that right to gay couples and in so doing change the very definition of marriage. On the other hand, more liberal citizens, backed by the President as well as many democrats, believe that marriage is right that should be extended to all, no matter of their sexual orientation, and that procreation is not the only reason for marriage, but instead it is the joining of two people that love each other. This controversial issue is being fought in numerous states; however California is undoubtedly the epicentre. Proposition 8 was a referendum passed by the people that banned same-sex marriage. As soon as it was passed into law a multitude of appeals were lodged against it claiming it was unconstitutional, although to begin with proposition 8 was upheld by the courts as constitutional, for example Strauss v. Horton, eventually the Californian 9th circuit Court of appeals ruled it unconstitutional.
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that it was unconstitutional to forbid people to marry someone of the same sex in Massachusetts. The Court decided that the Commonwealth could not deny a couple the benefits and stability of a civil marriage simply because the petitioners were of the same sex. Similarly, in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), The Supreme Court held that a Virginia statute outlawing marriage by two people of different races violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In Loving, the court affirmed that marriage is a fundamental civil right to free persons and stated that, “[t]he Fourteenth