The government has laws that married couples are entitled which includes protection and federal rights. According to the Human Rights Campaign, “There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law… the Defense of Marriage Act defines ‘marriage’ as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples -even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal .” For example, a spouse can receive social security payments from their diseased partner which is the basic support for many elderly Americans. However, this privilege does not include same-sex couples who can save for their whole life and still not receive the same benefits regardless of the commitment. The government is also shortcoming same-sex couples with regards to taxes in the U.S. The IRC, or the Internal Revenue Code, “exempts amounts transferred to a surviving spouse from the decedent’s taxable estate.
Perry Wheeler Dr. Livengood WRIT 101 10/13/2010 Is It Worth Telling Over the past sixteen years society’s views on homosexuals has greatly changed. This has had an impact on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy due to the argument of freedom of speech. The policy states that gay persons in the military could be discharged for admitting homosexuality but not for actually being gay. Kathleen Parker discusses “The military maybe a microcosm of society in some ways but it most definitely is not a democracy” (12). Although homosexual people believe that banning gays from the military violates their civilian rights; the military says that people give up the rights and freedoms when enrolling.
Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) Morrison Waite Background: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) practiced polygamy at the time of this case, which was illegal at the time. The laws against polygamy were being strengthened and the government was attempting to prosecute the leaders of the LDS Church. George Reynolds, secretary to leader of the LDS Church Brigham Young, agreed to be defendant in a test case brought before the Supreme Court in order to determine the constitutionality of polygamy to settle the issue. He informed the government about his wives and was subsequently charged with polygamy. Issue: Is polygamy constitutional?
He requested a medical leave from his company so that he can help his wife back home. John met the requirements and was told by his manager that he was allowed to take off but only up two 2 weeks. Because he was working out of the country and that he did not qualify for FMLA. Situation A - Violation FMLA allows up to 12 weeks of leave from your company as long as you stay within the requirements. John’s requests should have been approved because he met the requirements and understands that the company will not his salary while on FMLA.
An event were I learned a lesson from was when I signed up for the military. Even though I don’t regret joining I did learn a lesson and that is to not sign up for something that I don’t know much about or haven’t done any research about. When I was in high school I signed up for the Marines poolee program which is a program where you have to go do exercise once a week and sometimes one Saturday a month with other guys and girls that also want to join the marines . I was enrolled in the program for approximately two years before going to boot camp. I was enrolled for that long because I flunked my senior year of high school and I also changed my date to leave to boot camp twice.
Introduction The United States Military adopted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy in 1993, this policy states personnel may be discharged for homosexual conduct but not simply for being gay. Therefore, military commanders do not ask military personnel about their sexual orientations or begin an investigation except upon the receipt of "credible information" of homosexual conduct. If a person acknowledges his or her homosexuality publicly, military commanders presume that he or she intends to engage in homosexual conduct. The policy was a compromise between President Bill Clinton, who sought to repeal the military's ban on gay personnel, and the opponents of that repeal in Congress and among the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Professor Charles Moskos of Northwestern University developed the policy's framework, and Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia brokered the compromise (Frank).
Personally I have gone through arguments with many people about the proposition and what I stood for as a person. I do believe that it is a right for gays to be with their other partner, but at the same time I believe that marriage should be considered between a husband and wife, and marriage is not only done under the state, but under God. If homosexuals want to marry in a church or any type of religious place, they shouldn’t because as a fellow believer of God, I don’t see how they can get married under God’s name, where in the Bible marriage is seen between a man and a woman and not a woman and a woman or a man and man. And if they choose not to follow God’s view on marriage, then why should they get married in the house of the Lord? It just does not seem right.
Marriage solely being between a man and a women is something we have had for centuries, however, due to divorces and newer ways to have a family, our prestigious and “honorable estate” (Bennett 34) of marriage is weakened. By lumping gay marriage with traditional marriage, Bennett believes that the definition of marriage would be further weakened. If we legally allow this union to be a part of marriage, then how could we stop a less legitimate union, like incest or bigamy? Excluding marriage between a man and a woman is not discriminatory towards homosexuals, but it is protective towards our institution of
In fact, many join hoping they never have to see combat. I’ve heard Soldiers say, “I did not join the Army to do this. I joined for the college money.” The Army has an array of educational benefits. In terms of education, there is Tuition Assistance, which is $4500.00 a year. There is the Montgomery G.I.
Everyone should be treated the same whether or not they are homosexual or heterosexual.” Pondering her answer makes it clear that not everyone is equal. The United States is about being equal no matter whether someone, as an American citizen, male or female, black or white, or even have disabilities. Yet, what the United States did not realize is that the judgment it held against homosexuals would come, in a sense, to bite them in the butt. Equality is about putting everyone on the same playing field. As of today, interracial marriages are equal to same race marriages thanks to Mr. and Mrs. Richard Loving in the case Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S (1967), interracial couples are able to marry.