In my brief I will explore the effect of the Loving V. Virginia (1967) on the case of Obergefell V. Hodges (2015) and how it led to legalization of same sex marriage. I will prove that the 9th amendment which addresses the right to marriage did not specify that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I will also prove that the precedents set by prior cases reflected on the decision of the supreme justice. I will first explain the prior cases and discuss their rulings and reflect on the reason judges chose this. I will then discuss the Obergefell v. Hodges case and its similarity to prior cases .
Susie O'Brien's article 'It's time to honour gay couples and allow them to marry' (The Advertiser, November 20, 2010, p. 27) is arguing the side of pro-gay marriage in the debate of marriage equality. This argument is made using ethos, logos, pathos and suggestive language as to guide you to her side of the argument. Susie begins by talking about herself and her experience on the subject of whether or not she had a choice when growing up straight or gay. She demonstrates her knowledge on the topic by referencing her personal history; however not truly showing why her opinion should be listening to rather than others. Her argument is very personally based and draws examples such as herself and her family or friends.
Senior fellow for policy studies, Peter Sprigg in a Question and Answer article titled “What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?” addresses this matter of controversy by stating-in his opinion- the ‘vast negative consequences’ concerning gay marriage equality. In order to answer these questions, Sprigg uses a cataloging of biased satire, as opposed to factual information in backing up his opinions. Thus, considering his audience consists of those who are for gay rights or, at the least, do not understand such a negative connotation regarding what could be an incredibly life-changing milestone for many, I am very much against his close-minded responses. Furthermore, although it is technically lnews learning that Peter Sprigg in particular thinks allowing gay couples to marry is wrong I can’t say that I’m definitively taken aback when I discover that yet another individual carries this mindset that, “Homosexual relationships are not marriage”(Sprigg P.2), though disappointing nonetheless.
The future of same-sex marriage has long been a question in the United States; on June 26, 2015, under the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, the country finally got an answer. In a five to four decision, the Supreme court determined that under the Fourteenth Amendment, marriage between same- sex couples is legal in all fifty states. Under this decision, states that had previously banned same-sex marriage will have to recognize and permit same-sex marriage within their boundaries. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark decision that will not affect same-sex couples throughout the nation, but also every aspect of our society. Having been hired by a sociologist who wants to study the effect of
But it is normative, the ideal to which we aspire precisely because we believe some things are right (faithfulness in marriage) and others are wrong (adultery) (Bennett 410).” Bennett than says, “In assisting that marriage accommodate the less restrained sexual practices of homosexuals.” The writer
In the short essay, " Gay "Marriage": Societal Suicide”. Olson is headstrong towards the fact that gay marriage is unnecessary and will lead to the degradation of society. Clearly, Colson strongly opposes gay marriage and has given reason to his position however, in some parts, it lacks the necessary evidence needed to support the argument. Charles Colson writes an essay opposing gay marriage. He first cites his outrage towards the authorities for allowing it to be implemented in the law as he strongly believes that heterosexual marriage is the traditional building block of human society.
In the article “For Gay Marriage,” author Andrew Sullivan claims that denying the act over the controversial issue of legalizing marriage to homosexuals is the most offensive act pertaining to their communal tolerance. The main plea amplifies that the religious customs, state affairs, and the accustomed marriage is noted as acceptable in today’s society. Sullivan states that he is not getting into what churches do in their open biblical session, but what he believes the state should be more involved and take action to fix the social acceptance among homosexuals. By putting together that homosexuals should have the same basic rights as heterosexuals including marriage sparks the author to suggest that homosexuals are just as financially independent
III) Homosexuals can provide the love, care and home that a child needs (Reason). A) Homosexuals work and know what it means to provide a home not only for themselves but for a child (Warrant). B) According to the article “Gay Parenting Pros and Cons” by Crystal Lombardo gay parents are about the benefits of the new family unit and its impact to society, they are able to help in focusing on the child’s welfare and are able to give the child they adopt the opportunity of living in a loving family which they have not yet experienced (Backing). 1)
In 2015, the Obergefell v. Hodges case ended the “state bans on same-sex marriage”, therefore legalizing same-sex marriage (Important Supreme Court Cases). Now, “same-sex couples can now receive the benefits...of marriage that were largely exclusive to heterosexual couples” (Koch). The ruling has led to the modern fight for gay civil rights. Exposure to the LGBTQ+ community, the southern “Bathroom Bills”, and other fights for transgender rights, and the press for more LGBTQ+ representation in the media has erupted from this case. Both rulings had very big impacts on their respective communities.
Steve Seidman's "Gay Marriage" explores the relationship between gender roles and political rights, particularly by explaining the gay marraige movement. Seidman argues that the fight for gay marriage is not just about overall acknowledgment of same-sex relationships but also about the changing social dynamics of marriage and the deemed threats to traditional gender roles and power structures within it. This opposition originates from those traditional and typical ideas of marriage which
What's Wrong With Gay Marriage? by Katha Politt Is an essay written to help people understand that there isn't anything wrong with gay marriage. In her essay, she talks about the different reasons of why people get married. Some of the reasons are to show that people sometimes don't even get married out of love but out of the benefits that a marriage may bring to people.
Bronski states that “Much of the discussion about same-sex marriage concerns deeper economic and social-justice
The author references someone else to get there opinion and the author said that the topic of same-sex marriage has two sides, a left and a right. The Horwitz said that the left side as people who see marriage as an oppressive situation that gay couples should not want to join. Horwitz says that the right side are the ones who look at same-sex marriage as a virtue rather than a vice. A virtue means something when people have high standards for something. The researcher agrees with the right side of Horwitz idea.
Recently, some states have started to allow gay marriage, while others do not accept the idea of a same sex couple getting married. Gays or Homosexuals are sometimes targeted for the reason that they like another person of the same sex; “In the beginning, God made Adam and EVE, not Adam and Steve, nor Eve and Jane... Anti-gay Christian ministers have used this as a crux to propagate the myth that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’…." ( Ashford 1 ).