He also believes that homosexuality is not wrong. The acknowledgement of homosexuality is no longer debated, but due to the recent laws to recognize gay unions, the question is not if society should accept it, but how far our acceptance can go. Societal acceptance and respect for a person no matter who they are is something our society has strived for, however, legal acceptance of who person in this situation does not come as easily. Bennett successfully argues that legal acceptance for gay marriage should not be recognized due to our nation’s weak institution of marriage. 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.
Dontae caine Lgs 3:30-4:45 4/6/2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSON GROUNDS THAT THE STOLEN VALOR ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL To: Law partner to the current state of the law From: Dontae Reshard Caine Re: Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional Issue: Does the First Amendment protects false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud or gain anything? If so, what level of protection do they deserve. Six Justices agreed that some protection was warranted, but disagreed as to the amount, and three Justices believe that the First Amendment does not protect such lies at all. Background: The defendant has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of violation of 18U.S.C. § 704, popularly known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
Prop 8 Jennifer Raback Morse argues that “gay rights activists misunderstand the motives of proposition 8 supporters: The proposition is not an expression of hatred toward gays, but a way of restraining an overzealous state Supreme Court which had attempted to redefine marriage.” She views marriage as a “gender-based institution that attaches mothers and fathers to each other and to their children.” (pg. 83) I agree with Morse. She has a good point that the proposition is not an expression of hatred toward gays, but an attempt to redefine marriage, and children should have at least the chance to have a relationship with a mom and dad. I agree with Morse because the proposition was never to show hatred towards homosexuals, but it was to protect marriage. Personally I have gone through arguments with many people about the proposition and what I stood for as a person.
Hogan was decided correctly because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment; by men being in the school it does not prevent women from gaining training or other opportunities, and the medical field is not specifically just a woman’s job. Hogan was decided correctly because his right to the Fourteenth Amendment was violated. The Fourteenth Amendment is defined as: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, (Letric Law Library). Due to the Fourteenth Amendment, Hogan had the right to attend Mississippi University, School of Nursing Baccalaureate Program, even if he is a male.
266, that a petition to a Government official was actionable if prompted by "express malice," which was defined as "falsehood and the absence of probable cause," and nothing has been presented to suggest that that holding should be altered. Nor do the Court's decisions interpreting the Petition Clause in contexts other than defamation indicate that the right to petition is absolute. The Clause was inspired by the same ideals of liberty and democracy that resulted in the First Amendment freedoms to speak, publish, and assemble, and there is
Personally, I believe that homosexuals should be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples. As someone said, “marriage is a basic human right. You cannot tell people they cannot fall in love.” While he said this in reference to marriage between races, the same can be said about homosexuals. Who are we to allow some people to get married, and tell others they cannot. As a nation, we have no right to take
Title VII also cannot expand into a general civility code since “the statute does not reach genuine but innocuous differences in the ways men and women routinely interact with member of the same sex and of the opposite sex” (Twomey, 2013). Judgment by a Reasonable
The Court argued that the constitutional right to privacy was limited to matters relating to “marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing education.” The publication of records of official acts, such as arrests, did not fall under the rubric of privacy rights. Reputation alone is not constitutionally protected interest. The three justices (minority opinion) disagreed with the findings of the majority. The dissenting opinion reasoned that the decision justified that intrusive action defamed and stigmatized the respondent as a criminal. Justice Brennan, writing for the minority, reasoned an illegitimate and improper enforcement of law that assaulted the constitution (Chicago Kent College of
Hodges is a perfect example of a case of judicial activism. It is a case of judicial activism because the decision to allow same-sex marriage nationwide had almost nothing to do with the Constitution itself. How is one supposed to directly use the Constitution, the way strict constructionism would, if the Constitution does not directly answer the question being asked - What is marriage? Because of the fact that there is no “strict” constitutional outline when it comes to a case such as Obergfell v. Hodges majority seemed to replace opinions with their own personal thoughts on the matter at hand. They were able to look beyond the words of the Constitution ( they used judicial activism) in order to be able to better consider all of the possible outcomes that may take place by ruling positively in a case such as
To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint" (J.A Kennedy,2009) The truth is, I think it is sick that here in the United States, gay marriage is not a federally protected right. This is bigotry, pure and simple, and it needs to stop. Denying two women or two men the right to marry is as cruel and absurd as it was to deny two straight people of different races the right to marry. Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the Constitution of the United States guarantee everyone the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?